19980&593060 · the nasa sounding rocket program supports research efforts princi- pally in the...
TRANSCRIPT
ENV-5-F J:NASA is PedE'~jT-r Upox'"ov
DcUVrie,.Pr SH4OULO T3c- 2eILASEC
FINAL EIS - NASA SOUNDING ROCKET ) 99-3.
PROGRAMr+-
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONOFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE
SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM
S T. ,ON STEME~ 'PLEASE RETURN 1O:
r Approved for public release; BMD TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERSDistribution unlimited BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGAN1Th4
"7100 DEFENSE PENTAGONWASHINGION )D.C. 20301-7100
July, 1973
19980&593060
Accession Number: 5374
Publication Date: Jul 01, 1973
Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement for National Aeronautics and Space Administration Officeof Space Science
Personal Author: Peter Hunt Associates
Corporate Author Or Publisher: Environmental Protection Agency
Report Prepared for: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Abstract: The NASA OSS Sounding Rocket Program is responsible for the launch of approximately 80science and applications payloads per year. These launches are for NASA programs and those of otherU.S. government agencies, private industry, universities, foreign countries, and internationalorganizations. NASA launches occur or have occurred from 34 sites located throughout the world. Nine ofthese receive substantial use. Payloads launched by this program contribute in a variety of ways to controland betterment of the environment (e.g., solar studies). Environmental effects caused by the researchvehicles are limited in extent, duration, and intensity and are considered insignificant. There are no short-term alternatives to the current family of sounding rocket vehicles. The possibilites for changes in thefamily including new stage and sounding rocket developments, are continuously reviewed. Althoughmeasurements using high-altitude aircaft and balloons are possible at lower altitudes and using satellitesat much higher altitudes, the specific region of the atmosphere between about 40 and 200 km cannot bereached in any of other way. Sounding rockets can be launched simultaneously from several points andcan be used in response to time related phenomena.
Descriptors, Keywords: Environmental Impact Statement, NASA, OSS, Sounding Rocket Program
Pages: 102
Cataloged Date: May 07, 1996
Document Type: HC
Number of Copies In Library: 000001
Original Source Number: ENV-5-F
Record ID: 40654
SUMMARY
( ) Draft (X) Final
Responsible Federal Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA), Office of Space Science (OSS),Sounding Rocket Program
1. (X) Administrative Action ( ) Legislative Action
2. The NASA OSS Sounding Rocket Program is responsible for the launch ofapproximately 80 science and applications payloads per year. Theselaunches are for NASA programs and those of other U. S. governmentagencies, private industry, universities, foreign countries, and inter-national organizations. NASA launches occur or have occurred from34 launch sites located throughout the world. Nine of these receivesubstantial use.
3. Payloads launched by this program contribute in a variety of waysto the control and betterment of the environment (e.g., solar studies).Environmental effects caused by the research vehicles are limited inextent, duration, and intensity and are considered insignificant.
4. There are no short-term alternatives to the current family of soundingrocket vehicles. The possibilities for changes in the family includingnew stage and sounding rocket developments, are continuously reviewed.Although measurements using high-altitude aircraft and balloons arepossible at lower altitudes and using satellites at much higher altitudes,the specific region of the atmosphere between about 40 and 200 km cannotbe reached in any other way. Sounding rockets can be launched simultaneouslyfrom several points and can be used in response to time-relatedphenomena.
5. Comments on the 1971 Draft Statement were received from:
Environmental Protection AgencyPeter Hunt Associates.
These comments and NASA's reply to Peter Hunt Associates are includedin Appendix F. The EPA comments are incorporated into the body of thegreatly revised statement.
6. Draft Statement published April 21, 1971.Final Statement published July, 1973.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ....................... ... ....... ................... .......... i
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .............. ...................... 1
Disciplines Under Investigation ......... .................. 1
Vehicles ................................ . 2
International Programs...... . ...... ............. . . 6
Launch Sites ....... ......................... 8
TOTAL IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM ................................ 9
ACTIVITES WHICH MAY RESULT IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ............. .. 15
AIR QUALITY. ............ .......................... .... 17
Source and Nature of Emissions . ............... 17
Impact on the Environment ......... ..................... 18
Normal Launch ........... .................................. 19
Ground Level Effects. . . ...... .................... . 19
Upper Atmospheric Effects ....... ............... ... 25
Water ............ ........................ 25
Carbon Dioxide . . . . . . .... .......... ...... 26
Hydrogen Chloride........ . .................. 28
Engine Tests ................. ..................... e28
Abnormal Launches and Accidents ................. . .. 29
Summary of Sounding Rocket Effects on Air Quality ......... 30
WATER QUALITY............... . .. . . . . . . . . 34
Source and Nature of Pollutants ......... . . . ...... 34
Impact on the Environment ............. . ... ................. . 35
Hardware ................... . ..................... . . 35
Propellants ............ ........................... . 36
Solid Propellants . ............ .. ......... . 36
Liquid Propellants. . . . .. . . .. . . ... . 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Con tinued)
Page
Products of Combustion . . ................ 42
Biological Impacts ..... .................. 0 .. 45
Ultimate Fate of Water Pollutants. . . ....... . . 48
Summary of Sounding Rocket Effects on Water Quality ........... 48
NOISE ..... .................. ..... ............. 49
Source and Nature. ........................ . 49
Impact on the Environment. . ................. . . 54
IMPACT OF SPENT ROCKETS AND PAYLOADS ........ ............... * . . 56
ALTERNATIVES ...................... ........................... . 58
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.. . . 61
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........... 62
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. REFERENCES ................................... A-1
APPENDIX B. SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES ........... ................... .. B-1
APPENDIX C. LAUNCH SITE MAPS ........................... C-1
APPENDIX D. SOUNDING ROCKET EXHAUST PRODUCTS . ......... . . D-1
APPENDIX E. GLOSSARY . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
APPENDIX F. COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT BY EPA ANDPETER HUNT ASSOCIATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. NASA SOUNDING ROCKET VEHICLES ......... . ........ 3
FIGURE 2. PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES FOR NASA SOUNDING ROCKETS .... 4
FIGURE 3. WORLDWIDE SOUNDING ROCKET LAUNCH SITES. . . . . . . . . . 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Page
FIGURE 4. ESTIMATED PEAK CO CONCENTRATION DOWNWIND OF LAUNCHES. . . 23
FIGURE 5. ESTIMATED PEAK HC1 CONCENTRATION DOWNWIND OF LAUNCHES . 24
FIGURE 6. ESTIMATED PEAK CO CONCENTRATION DOWNWIND OFCATASTROPHIC PAD FAILURE......... . . . . . . . . . . . 31
FIGURE 7. ESTIMATED PEAK HC1 CONCENTRATION DOWNWIND OFCATASTROPHIC PAD FAILURE. . . . . . ............ 32
FIGURE 8. MAXIMUM FREE-FLIGHT SOUND SPECTRA FOR A SCOUT LAUNCH. . . 51
FIGURE 9. TYPICAL TIME DURATION OF THE NOISE PRODUCED BY ASCOUT LAUNCH AT A DISTANCE OF 1500 METERS . . . . . . . . 52
FIGURE 10. DISTANCES FROM THE LAUNCH SITE TO SPECIFICOVERALL PEAK SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS ............... ..... 53
FIGURE B-I. SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES FOR ARCAS AND SUPER ARCAS .......... B-2
FIGURE B-2. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR ASTROBEE D. ......... . .. B-3
FIGURE B-3. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR NIKE-APACHE ...... .......... . . . B-4
FIGURE B-4. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR ASTROBEE F ......... .............. B-5
FIGURE B-5. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR JAVELIN ........ .............. B-6
FIGURE C-I. MAP OF WALLOPS STATION ............. ................ .. C-2
FIGURE C-2. WHITE SANDS LAUNCH FACILITY AND RANGE .... .......... .. C-3
FIGURE C-3. LOCATION OF FORT CHURCHILL RESEARCH RANGE ... ........ .. C-4
FIGURE C-4. LAUNCHING SITE OF FORT CHURCHILL RESEARCH RANGE ........ C-5
FIGURE C-5. LOCATION OF POINT BARROW LAUNCH FACILITY ............ ... C-6
FIGURE C-6. THUMBA ROCKET LAUNCHING STATION (TERLS) .... . . . C-7
FIGURE C-7. ANDOYA ROCKET RANGE ... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . C-8
FIGURE C-8. ANDOYA ROCKET RANGE LAUNCH SITE . . . . .......... C-9
FIGURE C-9. LOCATION OF NATAL LAUNCH FACILITY ...... .......... . . . C-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Page
FIGURE C-10. LOCATION OF NATAL LAUNCH FACILITY .. .................. C-11
FIGURE C-lI. NATAL LAUNCH FACILITY ...... ............... . C-12
FIGURE C-12. KIRUNA ROCKET RANGE ................. . . . . C-13
FIGURE C-13. POKER FLAT ROCKET RANGE ........ ................. C-14
FIGURE C-14. POKER FLAT ROCKET RANGE ........ .................. C-15
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SOUNDING ROCKETS CURRENTLY USED IN THENASA SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM ........... .............. 5
TABLE 2. LAUNCH SITES FOR SOUNDING ROCKETS .... ............ .I.. I1
TABLE 3. LAUNCH SITES USED, 1959-1972, FOR NASA SOUNDINGROCKET LAUNCHES IN DESCENDING ORDER OF FREQUENCY .... 12
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTOF NASA OSS SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM ............. ... 13
TABLE 5. EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR SOME COMBUSTION PRODUCTSAND PROPELLANTS ............... .................... 20
TABLE 6. DISPERSION CHARACTERISTICS WITHINSELECTED ATMOSPHERIC LAYERS ..... ............... ... 21
TABLE 7. QUANTITIES OF POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS EMITTEDINTO SELECTED ATMOSPHERIC LAYERS .... ............ .. 22
TABLE 8. ESTIMATED YEARLY RELEASES OF CO, HCI, A1 2 03 , H2 0, andCO2 INTO THE VARIOUS ATMOSPHERIC LAYERS. ............. .. 27
TABLE 9. HISTORICAL RECORD OF SOUNDING ROCKET LAUNCHES ..... ... 37
TABLE 10. MAXIMUM THEORETICAL EFFECTS OF ACTIVE PRODUCTSOF COMBUSTION WHEN DISSOLVED IN WATER .......... . . . 43
TABLE 11. LAUNCH SITE CHARACTERISTICS AS RELATED TO
POTENTIAL FOR WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION ......... . . . 47
TABLE 12. NOISE LEVELS FOR DAMAGE RISK AND ANNOYANCE . . . .*. . . 54
TABLE D-I. SOUNDING ROCKET PROPELLANT EXHAUST PRODUCTS .......... . D-2
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office
of Space Science (OSS) Sounding Rocket Program provides research vehicles
and operations for the automated suborbital upper atmosphere and space
research missions of OSS, the NASA Office of Applications (OA), the NASA
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST), other government organi-
zations [e.g., National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Defense (DOD), and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)), universities,
private industry, foreign governments, and international organizations. This
responsibility is met by the Sounding Rocket Program(')* and appropriate
sounding rocket research and development activities which support current
and expected future requirements.
Disciplines Under Investigation
The NASA Sounding Rocket Program supports research efforts princi-
pally in the fields of solar physics, galactic astronomy, magnetospheric
physics, high energy astrophysics, aeronomy, and meteorology. Specifically
-included in the program are rockets to map the parameters of the earth's
atmosphere between about 40 and 200 km; to study pressure, temperature,
and density of the ionosphere; to measure ionosphere electric currents;
and to study auroras and airglow. The interrelations of these parameters
and their dependence on solar heating, solar flares, geomagnetic storms,
trapped radiation fluctuations, and meteor streams are also being investi-
gated through sounding rockets to supplement the knowledge obtained from
balloons, aircraft, satellites, and ground observations.
* References thus indicated are listed in Appendix A.
2
Special situations occur where time-coordinated vertical measure-
ments are required at a number of locations or where data from vertical
cross-sections are required to supplement data from horizontal cross-
sections. The development of attitude stabilization systems, particularly
for the Aerobee, makes the Sounding Rocket Program uniquely suitable
for conducting exploratory astronomical observations in the X-ray, ultra-
violet, and radio regions of the electromagnetic spectrum which are not
observable from the earth's surface.
Vehicles
Through the development of vehicles and subsystems necessary
to satisfy experimenter requirements, NASA has, over the years, evolved
a family of sounding rocket vehicles that provides the range of capa-
bilities necessary to perform the desired sounding rocket missions.
The NASA sounding rocket vehicle family provides experimenters
with the capability of economically sending about 4.5 to 450 kg payloads
to altitudes as high as about 1200 km. Provisions can be made for payload
recovery and highly accurate payload pointing.
Outline sketches of the basic family of NASA sounding rocket
vehicles are presented in Figure 1, while Figure 2 shows their per-
-formance capabilities. Table 1 provides a general summary of data for
each of the NASA sounding rocket vehicles.
15-
,I-
C 10-E
-1Z
u 5-0
0 z0
FIGURE 1. NASA SOUNDING ROCKET VEHICLES
4
GROSS Pt,',LOAD - POUNDS
25 30 40 50 60 8) 100 200 300 400 500600 800 10003000 - -""
'TI I I I -I i I - 1 0
-1500
2000
1 700
c00900700
1000 - 00900-800 -
- aS700 -1i
' - 600 - JAVELIN400
O 500 NIKE TOMAHAWK AEROBEE 200
3G0O 300 '-1-00SBLACK BRANT EnB 150
S200 L A ER BE 5
ASTROBEE F - SOAEROBEE 170 80
hpo MIKE APACHF\ - 70eo- -AEROBEE 1 50 601060
90 ScU P EPR NIKE CAJUNSARCAS50
70
60 ASTROCEE 0 SEA LEVEL LAUNCH 40
60 ARCAS Q E =85"50 QE=- 30
40 , I L I IL_..i -_LI I I I I L fI I 1 I10 20 30 40 5060 C O 100 200 300 400 500 600 800S1WC00
GROSS PAYLOAD - KILOGRAMS
FIGURE 2. PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES FOR
NASA SOUNDING ROCKETS
5
TABLE 1. SOUNDING ROCKETS CURRENTLYUSED IN THE NASA SOUNDINGROCKET PROGRAM*
AverageThrust Levels
Quantity of Average at Maximum DimensionType of Propellant Total Vehicle Zero Altitude (meters)
Vehicle Propellant (kg) Mass (kg) (Newtons) length(a) diameter(b)Areas 34 1.374 2.4 0.11
Stage 1 AP/FVC/Al 18.5
Super Areas 42 1,446 2.7 0.11Stage I APIPVC/Al 23.7
Astrobee D 92 15,840 3.6 0.15Stage 1 HTPB 60.5
Black Brant 111T 360 43,700 5.5 0.26Stage 1 AP/u/al,/ 227
Nike-Cajun 750 204,920 9.2 0.42Stage 1 NGINC 340Stage 2 AP/PS/A1 54
Nike-Apache 770 204,920 9.2 0.42Stage I NG/NC 340Stage 2 Ar/h'c!,A 59
Nike-Tomahawk 910 204,920 9.6 0.42Stage 1 NG/NC 340Stage 2 AP/PEAN/Al 175
Aerobee 150 970 77,395 10.4 0.38Stage 1 WP/AS 118Stage 2 IRFNA/AFA 485
Astrobee F 1,350 168,579 10.4 0.38Stage 1 HTIPB 996
Aerobee 170 1,360 204,920 12.8 0.42Stage 1 NG/NC 340Stage 2 IRFNA/AFA 485
Aerobee 200 1,500 204,920 13.2 0.42Stage 1 NG/NC 340Stage 2 IRFNA/AFA 582
Black Brant VCStage 1 AP/PU/Al 998 1,520 75,730 8.1 0.43
Aerobee 350 3,440 204,920 15.3 0.80Stage 1 NG/NC 340Stage 2 IRFNA/AFA 1,966
Javelin 3,400 401,770 14.6 0.58Stage I NG/NC 930Stage 2 NG/NC 340Stage 3 NG/NC 340Stage 4 NG/NC 206
* Information found in this table was assembled from a multitude of sources.
Reference I was the predominant source.
(a) Length varies with the payload shroud and may be different than shownfor some configurations.
(b) Diameter does not include fins.
AFA - aniline-furfuryl alcoholAl - aluminumA? - ammonium perchlorateAS - asphaltHTPB - hydroxy terminated polybutadieneIRFNA - red fuming nitric acid inhibited with hydrofluoric acid (NF)
P - potassium perchlorateNC - nitrocelluloseW- nitroglycerine
,BAN - polybutadiene-acrylic acid-acrylonitrilePS - polysulfidePU - polyurethanePVC - polyvinylchloride
6
The performance data shown in Figure 2 are for an 85 degree
elevation angle (QE), sea level launch as a function of gross payload
mass. Performance different from that shown in Figure 2 would result
from changes in payload geometry, protrusions such as antennas, and
variation in launch elevation. Gross payload mass includes the mass
of the nose cone, any cylindrical extension, telemetry, attitude control
system (ACS), recovery package, and the experimental payload.
In the period 1961-1972 these vehicles were launched by NASA
at an average rate of about 130 per year. Current projections indicate
an average NASA launch rate of about 80 per year for the period 1973-1980.
Within the United States a large number of government agencies
are flying, or have flown, sounding rockets. In addition to the NASA,
the primary agencies launching sounding rockets today are: Air Force
Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL), Naval Research Laboratory (NRL),
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC Sandia), Kitt Peak National Observatory
(KPNO), and the Defense Atomic Support Agency (DASA).
International Programs
The purpose of the Sounding Rocket Program, as related to
International Cooperative Programs, is to stimulate scientific interest
and technical competence of other countries. In order to stimulate
interest, NASA provides sounding rocket flight opportunities for the
participation of scientists and agencies of other countries in experi-
ments and observations which will increase man's understanding and use
of his spatial environment, and supports operating requirements for
launching and observation of sounding rocket flights.
7
During the past decade, about twenty countries have joined with
NASA in cooperative projects resulting in the launching of more than
500 rockets from ranges in the United States and abroad. In all cases,
the scientific data are shared and the results published in the open
literature. The basic components of a NASA sounding rocket program
are the scientific payload, sounding rocket, launch facilities and
services, and ground equipment for command, telemetry, and tracking.
Division of responsibilities in international cooperative projects with
Brazil, Norway, India, and other countries has varied to reflect the
respective interests and capabilities of the cooperating parties in the
specific project.
In most cases, foreign scientists propose experiments to NASA.
If there is NASA interest in the scientific investigation, then a coop-
erative project is designed and arrangements made with NASA providing
the sounding rockets and the cooperative agency providing both the
scientific payload and range services. Occasionally, payloads are
cooperatively furnished by U. S. and foreign scientists.
In 1966, in another type of relationship, NASA scientists
initiated an X-ray astronomy program requiring a launch from the
Brazilian equatorial range into the South Atlantic anomaly. In this
case, NASA provided both the scientific payload and an Aerobee sounding
rocket. Brazilian space authorities prepared and operated the launch
range.
8
Launch Sites
The location of sounding rocket ranges has been determined
mainly by logistic and safety requirements. In some cases, such as
that of the auroral site at Fort Churchill, ranges have been constructed
specifically to undertake research on special scientific problems. A
number of scientific investigations involving coordinated launchings of
sounding rockets from several sites have been carried out, beginning
during the International Geophysical Year (IGY). During IGY, World Days
were set aside for coordinated launchings of sounding rockets. Synoptic
scientific investigations have been proposed and worldwide cooperative
flights have been undertaken. It has been from studies of this nature
that the advantages derived from the simultaneous or coordinated sounding-
rocket investigations at various geographical sites have been established.
It is now possible to investigate problems in meteorology and aeronomy by
means of simultaneous or consecutive flights (from the same or several
launch sites). The study of solar-terrestrial relations and the effects
of latitude variations are typical examples.
The distribution of sounding rocket sites has become all the
more important in the correlation of observations obtained from satellites
with observations of phenomena which vary with altitude. The capacity for
"undertaking such comparisons depends on the geographical distribution of
sounding rocket launch facilities and the state of development of these
facilities.
9
Sounding rocket vehicles have been launched from 43 sites
around the world shown in Figure 3. Thirty of these sites are listed in
Table 2; twelve of these are under the control of the United States.
Table 3(2) indicates that, during the 1959-1972 period, over 37 percent
of the launches were made from Wallops Station and over 90 percent of
the launches were made from nine launch sites plus shipboard. The nine
launch sites, Wallops Station, White Sands, Fort Churchill, Point Barrow,
Thumba, Andoya, Natal, Sweden (now Kiruna, formerly Kronogard), and
Fairbanks (Poker Flat), described in some detail in Appendix C, account
for over 90 percent of all NASA sounding rocket launches.
TOTAL IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM
The potential environmental impact of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, Sounding Rocket Program
activities is summarized in Table 4. No significant impact i expected
from current or future activities.
In terms of global or even national significance, the contributions
of the NASA sounding rocket launches to environmental pollution are
insignificant and many orders of magnitude below those of other sources of
such pollution.
Conversely, the scientific information derived from payloads
launched by these rockets has made significant contributions(28) to
the understanding, prediction, and use of the environment, and, thus,
ultimately to its betterment. Future activities are expected to contribute
even more to the understanding of man's environment.
10
L2
00
Uw
Zw 03-
z
it
f6 2
to a
, 4 4 ,,
0-
IiI
CZ
Q3.
11
TABLE 2. lAUNCH SITES FOR SOUNDING ROCKETS
Location Coordinates
Argentina
Chamical 30.5 S, 66 W
Ascension Island (British) 7.57 S, 14.22 W
AustraliaWoomera 21.0 S, 137 E
BrazilNatal 5 S, 35 WRio Grande Beach 32.02 S, 52.05 W
CanadaFort Churchill 58.8 N, 94.3 WResolute Bay 74.6 N, 95.0 W
France (South America)French Guiana 5 N, 53 W
IndiaThumba 8.5 N, 77 E
ItalySardinia 39.6 N, 9.5 E
KenyaSan Marco Platform 2.9 S, 40.2 E
NorwayAndoya 69.3 N, 16 E
Netherlands (S. Amer.)Dutch Guiana,Surinam 5 N, 55 W
New ZealandKarikari 34.47 S, 173.27 E
PakistanSonmiani (Karachi) 26 N, 67 E
SpainArenosilia 38.07 N, 4.23 W
SwedenKronogard 66 N, 18 EKiruna 68 N, 21 E
United StatesWhite Sands, N.M. 32.5 N, 106.5 WCape Kennedy, Fla. 28.2 N, 80.6 WWallops Station, Va. 37.8 N, 75.5 WEglin AFB, Fla. 30.4 N, 86.7 WPoint Mugu, Calif. 34.1 N, 119.1 W
Kauai, Hawaii 21.9 N, 159.6 WKwajalein, Marshall Islands 8.8 N, 167.7 ETonopah, Nevada 38.0 N, 116.5 WMcMurdo Sound, Antarctica 77.9 S, 166.6 EPt. Barrow, Alaska 71.3 N, 156.8 WKeweenaw Penisula, Michigan 47.5 N, 87.7 WPoker Flat, Alaska 64.6 N, 147.5 W
12
TABLE 3. LAUNCH SITES USED, 1959-1972, FOR NASASOUNDING ROCKET LAUNCHES IN DESCENDINGORDER OF FREQUENCY*
CumulativeNumber Number Percent
Launch Site of Launches of Launches of Launches
Wallops Station, Virginia (U.S.) 625 625 37.4White Sands, New Mexico (U.S.) 295 920 55.1Fort Churchill, Canada 276 1196 71.6
Point Barrow, Alaska (U.S.) 73 1269 75.9Thumba, India 52 1321 79.1Andoya, Norway 49 1370 82.0
** Shipboard 47 1417 84.8Natal, Brazil 43 1460 87.4
(Kronogard and Kiruna), Sweden 39 1499 89.7Fairbanks (Poker Flat), Alaska 20 1519 90.9French Guiana 17 1536 91.9Karachi, Pakistan 16 1552 92.9Ascension Island, South Atlantic (British) 12 1564 93.6Kauai, Hawaii (U.S.) 11 1575 94.3
Arenosilia, Spain 10 1585 94.9
Camp Tortaquero, Puerto Rico (U.S.) 9 1594 95.4
Pacific Missile Range, Point Mugu, Calif. (U.S.) 8 1602 95.9Foxmain, Canada 8 1610 96.3Karikari, New Zealand 7 1617 96.8Woomera, Australia 7 1624 97.2
**Koroni, Greece .7 1631 97.6
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (U.S.) 6 1637 98.0Northwest Territories, Canada 5 1642 98.3
Resolute Bay, Canada 5 1647 98.6Coronie, Surinam 4 1651 98.8
Ft. Greeley, Alaska (U.S.) 3 1654 99.0
Barter Island, Alaska (U.S.) 3 1657 99.2
Sardinia, Italy 3 1660 99.3
Cnamical, Argentina 2 1662 99.5
Keweenaw Penninsula, Michigan (U.S.) 2 1664 99.6Panama 2 1666 99.7Antigua 2 1668 99.8Primrose Lake, Canada 2 1670 99.9
San Marco Platform, Kenya 2 1671 100.0
* Reference 2.** Shown on Figure 3, but not listed as a current launch site in Table 2.
13
M 4JI 4. 4i 4J 4J
H C 0 0 0)o44 44 4-4 4-4 4-444 4-4 44 44 0 - o)
0 0 0• 0 0 000) •0 w
4-i~4 4)4J )E4~0*
0 0 0 0 u 0$40
CL 4-4 4-4 4-4 '4-4 -, '44 M-o -r -,4 "-4 --- 4 V-4 -kr a c r- 0 r. 440w) 00 00 bo b. 000w
> -H r4 -14 -- co "4 .41 o o • o
= C C 0 rz0 0 0 0 0 0- w0"
-4
0 .- 4 .0 r- 41l 4J
0 -X o Q $-4 Co 0 .
$4J0 CO "~4 :$ u0 0 -0r -)~ fn00 4 -4 W fn 4) 0 4).
.-4 a .4 w)0 04 o -. o
r4-4 4J0-, W0 WO 0O 4 - u u r
.- O * OU P4 0 -r4 W0 0 M 4 04J4J E J r- -4 ~.J E0 -4 C.) 4J"U44 4 0 -,0
"4 0• -r W 0 l )
0 ; Z W -4$ 400 r4C C 4 - 0)4-4 W 4J4 4JI 4J -40
-W 41 U 1 0 W a W444 0 4 C
OH a r-4 ;>-4 a)s-000$4 l0cE 0 0 0 -ý4 u u 0P4wo , uO 4)w0Ed u 4A *H) -4 " " "
P4;)"4 -4W)o *H -t- u IJUC--4 CC 44 "4 LW 0
U0 a)wz.4s- J 0 -4 w 000~~~~~~ ~ ~ 4- 4)E-4u()c c aa4
>14-1 r c 14)- Z) 0 O w
ý-4 H-- )
1. 0). 44D0 toi 444 04 Si
.0~ 0) Q)) 14-.4-J U Uo U ")4 -,41
U~~~t 00 44'- -41.J.. A4- 4.4 w O 00 c
ciu u 0) $4 "0 ~0)a) Q) $4 4-J
u 0.co 4.4 44 LW z0 &J--L --4 -- 4 04 0 0 1.H 0H
-H H - 0-r4 -Q
coH1 4)0 -41Z j 4.j c 0 C0 XO > 0
r4-- co 0o ca CL-1 c
00 -rHr "4 $410 - U0
0)4 C0 b0 00 00 CCLs
4.4 U coU4-4."4 0 0 0 CL c 00u
00
0)
$r4 4.
"0 -co- '-4 cis $4 0 V 0
0 fr3 -4 0, Z44.
0d 4) cc 0 004 c4.. -4 0) >
cc0 0 w 0H.
44 44 :a z c4L
14
The commitment of resources to this program is very modest
and is not of major significance to the national economy. The program
is not a major consumer of any scarce or limited resource.
Currently, there are no significant development activities in
the NASA Sounding Rocket Program related to vehicles, stages, or chemical
propulsion motors. The NASA Sounding Rocket Program is managed by NASA
Headquarters through the Goddard Space Flight Center and Wallops Station,
Sounding rockets have been launched from many locations on
the earth, including from shipboard. Significant use has been made of
about thirty sites (as listed in Table 2) in the course of conducting
the NASA Sounding Rocket Program.
15
ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY RESULT IN ENVIRON1MENTAL IMPACT
The activities which result from the operation of NASA OSS
Sounding Rocket Program are:
e Advanced Studies
e Research and Development
* Sounding Rocket Manufacture
* Sounding Rocket and Component Testing
* Launches of Scientific Payloads.
Possible environmental effects which might result from these
activities include:
9 Air Quality
e Water Quality
e Noise
* Impact of Spent Stages and Payloads
* Population Shifts (due to manpower needsfor the programs)
9 Liquid Waste
* Solid Waste
* Pesticides.
Of the above possible environmental effects, the first four
are considered to be of greatest potential. significance and will be
considered in greater detail in subsequent sections of this Environmental
Impact Statement. No population shifts of significance are expected to
result from current or planned future activities. The solid waste gen-
erated by these activities is generally valuable and is usually recovered.
The liquid wastes generated by these activities are minor and have no
16
significant effect on the environment. Use of pesticides is at most only
incidental to the manufacture, test, and launch of sounding rockets. Con-
sequently, population shifts, solid wastes, liquid wastes, and pesticides
will not be considered further.
The advanced studies, most research and development activities,
manufacturing, and most testing, are relatively clean and quiet operations
and do not directly produce significant environmental effects. However,
such activities do consume power, steel, aluminum, paper, etc., and thus,
may have some secondary impact on the environment. This secondary impact
is difficult to quantify, but probably does not differ grossly from that
resulting from the employment of an equal number of people in other
activities. Consequently, it will not be considered further.
Some research and development activities and testing, particularly
those related to rocket propulsion systems, result in the handling and
consumption of propellants and, thus, may affect air and water quality
and generate noise, Propellant consumption in current research and develop-
ment activities is minor. The impact of these activities is considered in
the subsequent sections of this Statement.
The actual launch and flight of sounding rockets are the major
activities which may cause some temporary perturbation in the environment.
In addition to normal rocket launch and flight, the effect of possible
abnormal launch and flight conditions will be considered in the following
sections. The vehicle trajectory, launch date, launch time, and other
parameters are adjusted, as necessary, to meet safety requirements.
Examples of trajectory plots and corresponding impact points for repre-
sentative sounding rockets considered in this Environmental Impact
Statement are shown in Appendix B.
17
AIR QUALITY
Source and Nature of Emissions
All current and expected future sounding rocket vehicles
will be powered by chemical rocket engines. These engines operate
by the combustion of a fuel and self-contained oxidizer. The types
of fuels and oxidizers are listed in Table 1. The products of combustion
exhausted from the rocket nozzle may include compounds and molecular
fragments which are not stable at ambient conditions, or which may
react with the ambient atmosphere. The detailed composition of rocket
exhaust gases is based on thermochemical calculations.
The substances emitted by rocket engines may be derived from
the nominal propellant, from additives to the propellant, from impurities
in the propellant, or from the engine itself (e.g., ablative components).
Major chemical species emitted by rocket engines are:
Water
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrogen Chloride
Nitrogen
Hydrogen
Aluminum Oxide
Of the major constituents, carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride
are generally recognized as air pollutants and may present a toxicity
hazard. In the upper atmosphere, water and carbon dioxide may be
18
considered as potential pollutants due to their low natural concentration,
and their possible influence on the earth's heat balance and on the
ozone and electron concentration.*
In a normal launch, the exhaust products are distributed
along the vehicle trajectory. Due to the acceleration of the vehicle,
and the staging process, the quantities emitted per unit length of
trajectory are greatest at ground level and decrease continuously. In
the event of a failure during powered flight, the vehicle may explode
or a stage may fail to ignite. In addition, Aerobee's liquid rocket
engines can be shut down if a problem develops with the vehicle.
Little information is available concerning the products formed or
the extent to which the propellants are consumed if an explosion
were to occur.
From 1961 through June, 1972, approximately 97 percent of
the 1527 NASA sounding rocket launches were successful. (4)
Research, development, and test activities result in the
consumption of propellants other than in flight. At the present time,
research, development, and test activities result in the consumption
of significantly less propellants than normal launches.
Impact on the Environment
Potential air pollutants from NASA Sounding Rocket Program
activities may arise from the following situations. The pollutant involved
is also indicated.
* NASA is conducting investigations on the effects of combustion productson the upper atmosphere. These investigations are being coordinatedwith the DOT and NOAA.( 3 )
19
Situation Pollutant
Engine Test Combustion Products
Launch Combustion Products
On-pad Accident Propellants, Combustion Products
In-flight Failure Propellants, Combustion Products
Table 5 lists the propellants and the related combustion
products of primary concern, together with some reported and estimated
human exposure criteria. Data on exhaust product compositions of NASA
sounding rockets are summarized in Table D-l, Appendix D.
Table 6 briefly describes dispersion characteristics within
selected atmospheric layers. Table 7 lists the combustion products of
concern emitted into these layers. Note that quantities of CO2 and H20
are tabulated for the higher altitudes, due to the concern that these
materials may have an influence on the Earth's heat balance or on the
ozone or electron concentrations at high altitudes.
Normal Launch
Ground Level Effects. Ground level concentrations of the
pollutants resulting from sounding rocket launches have been estimated
using a multi-point source atmospheric diffusion model which assumes a
buoyant rise of the exhaust cloud.(11) The dispersion from each point
source is based on the instantaneous point source equation described
by Turner.(12) Figures 4 and 5 present the results of these calculations
for the combustion products CO and HC1 using three atmospheric stability
criteria (slightly unstable, neutral, and slightly stable). The exposure
criteria shown on Figures 4 and 5 for controlled populations are the
industrial Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) (considered conservative for
short duration, infrequent exposures) and the criteria for exposure from
ordinary operations for uncontrolled populations (See Table 5).
20
0
- 0 1-4 4co u c 0 u0 X4.
00 r-4 0 0 z0D: - -)- -),4 cl.- w to
.0 .00 0 0 >4r= 0 0 w .w 0( c ' 0' 4.)
w0 n 04) 'c-4 cc, -C) 04ci 0 i -4 -4 0 u 0 40 ca03 0. V 0., *.4J0 ,4 x w0- X- u
"4 4J2 P- 0)0 1.40 " 0c wcc ". 14 ('4 u V 0 ) 0)c 4)ca r. -4 Q
wEI -4' 00 0- Occi- 04 4J4ci)x 0 -4 00 c 0 w- cc-0
4) W 0 -4-0 d 4 4) 4-4) 0 .4J r=4 r-4 $4 0w 0 cc '0
0)A GJ-'W4-4 04ai 0 . 0 4 W¼ 0 : ~4J4
04 '-' 0o i'- $.c4 4 0 ci
$4 4)2 C'- co.4-0 4c z-9:600).,'4 00 C 4C
'0 C:l 34Jc 0 P--
u 0 0 0 0 0W.4a 0 0P , 0 ca 4J.44 '0 0)*-0 c 0. -4N 0
CO 0ý Oci 14Q 'n 0 -0- 0N CL r- -4( a) 0)
ci~4 02- M2 -44c "-4.0) ci1 0U0 0 ci ci .0 0cu 0
U P 4 W i 000 04 u2 O .0) 00 z ) '
0)0x u- 1.jj0c a - 14 0CL -'- -r4 m.0 " 00.-
1x $4 . 00 -4 "0r -0 i4-4J C:. co 0nw c c 0 w1.
0-r i 0
W -0 u"(4 E2. 0 o O00 m4 -440
.0c r_ 4 0 u 0' 0 .40 0) .-
0 ca !4c 0. -4-4J 1,-%ci~4 0 0 E)0 x-j(0. 0
014 '. 0* - =0 "a0 04 1.4 W 4w W*C: r4d CO4> 0 0 4J 0 > i 0) U)-
C)0 *00 " n -4, .. 4C4 -r4 w $w Z
ý4 0 4J 0 -4 -W 0 0.0 0 ci-4 ) .c '.4 a) 0 W 0 ll. 0- 0
-r4/ 0 ,)41 -4 141
C5 w 00 00 0 a)-
w0 c E-C'-44J 0) W 0$4 z0 p-0 0 co0 P 4Jc4 w w$ $4 0c "4 .a) w*d
00Q) -'-4 '4 . 0 0 1.4 fr. p~ 0 4J J0*'4- E 0L( I I I i I cc w U 0).0 0- 4J- 0o Ici O
4j1- -5. C'4 N 1 I F c4. CL '4-4 ~~ 0 p. 4.40) "4 (Ua 4.J 1.20 041Jc Z 0 4100 'm w0 w4 p'- en D- 4.40 cc c cc 0. 00c 0 .
V 0 O 4-40 0 -4 -40)cO (. C c0iC -0. = u#%4 0 Z 1-0c $4ci.1-4J -W 00
0~ ci r 0 -14 4.10 (V- .-4 -4 0r-'''4 w w 41 0 4141 0 P$414 S c
.,4 4J 400 -4) -'4 > 0. CE 00() Q ) 1-4E0 C)~ 0 0 $4 4J w) p. a) bC W 4.4 Cr- .0
a)CY "4 4J c 0 04-J Z O24 0 0oc0 00o ".4 X 0 0 C 0 ) x~
ciO4 0 0200S ) *-r4 4) 0 -0 0~c u 1.4 -4 4J 4J- 1.4 4JI C 0 up4 u to w 0i w 0)0 $44.) 00 ci 4J 000 4.c 4 0c m 02.00 o0 O'00$4) p .-r4 0,) u 00 0i4.JX 1.4 0. -4 a)Ca00 p. 144 4.)
1-.) -ca 0 ))) X0 0) 0404w r -' 24.4 4)0)c) 0: ý ) dM ~.%4- LI4 0c 0) ý
%." CC~ 0 04 0O a4N) wt >-c 0- c 1~.-4 00 m.>- CA. Lr 0 0C,4ci v4 c 4 0 34 04 -r4 c2 0L)0 0.>
Lr 40 Z " o i 1.4 >- 00) -4M ,4 -4 Q o0 $4 CD." 0) . 00 >1 0$ C04 cc.0p ca (L)4 mC.,'014 CO -4ci "4 20'~- 54 X -4
o0 -01.a4 -400 Cal -14- 0) -4 >)0 ,40) 04 ...- Ca U0 1'0 .0 0 c ci
) C'.) c") -4 ,- 0 CC $4 -44d 14 -4..T Q) 4 4.j 0 0 00 W 4J fn) . -,w.4 04 AJ 0) -414 -4d
w b0 C0 !40 c c 4)p 4) 00w 021. 0) V4i 0)4o)ob 242 0)u m ci)0 00) 0 O4) r 04 c w4J '- E ci) >1- O .0 ca .- u0)0c )-c$0 00 , O ) m c
.0 04 1- -N Z U 004 " : U Z 0 0 W44 go ~4C)) 0 N- C.) 0r -4 44i-. -
L) 0' ' - 0 c c 04 4) 0 'o 0 44~:z U. -c 9 i H < ~ N-.4 %.,%o
21
04)1
go 1.a0
S0) 44 .0 ;> -ý .0
0 4 0 T-4 0 14'a0 r-4d " -4 0w
00 0o Pk Coen ca
0)r) 0) w V wa;> r.. ~0 0 09:4 w) C 0 0 0V.4 boP uý
'a'-a
E
w- r. 0)0 0 -1
$1 0) -4I " -01 1-a 04 C -1 c
'an - .- 4a0 x 0)r0a 'a wC 0 01 0
-4 0)4 U "
H'a L *,u .- O .- 40 a) ()0
1-4 0) > 0 0
0)
0) z
o0 .-r4 -,4-() -a4 "4- "a4a) a)0) 0) 01) ()X- X~ .0 x~ X0.
Ai 4-1 41 $a0 A 4.)
"0) -4- *-,40 -,4 -4- "4-$4 r-.4 - -4~ ý
'a 0n ) 0)1- 0) E0 0) c04 0a 00o 0 co (L c
03) 0) a) ) = Q) 01)-$45- 1-4-I Sd 'a 4- $4u 0 u 0 u
0)00 0) 0~ V, )En H- C'a H -4*4 cz
4 '-S
'00
0 w)0 4
$4 0) 0)0) >00
> 0)Sýd -'4 0
0)b C 0) $0 14 S
u c0 : 0) .0"014 1 r) .0 w-
w'ua .00 1a)C1 0) 0)'
Q) 4) 0 0 Z Lr) X0 I 01.D a)~ >'a.* Lr) 0i)-4 O.td WI n . 0 M
1 1 V * 00 C) L.0 0o
to~C 4j 0 1e n1-I -r- 0. cc 0
E0Jr- 0) 0- 'a V).Li 4 a) Q) $
22
C440. co en a a a a a
co 0%
4)~ 0 en I S U I
-0 a a,a an
sm en an
0 En
an 0% 0) 0e
.4 10 .D 'I %
an_ 0 0% N0>4 '4
S 0 . en . n %0 C ý 'P4 'm4 4 co
H 0 to oo ar $n i n CY40 w. 04 '0 4w r
cn~~ ~ n* en C0 N;-4 '
m n Ln 4 11 G . rg0 5 0 Ir 0 al a I
1) r! 0 N4
C> 0D 0 0n 0 0jF-4 V% Jd.4
an 04 n Go 0n 0 0D an OnD
0 ~ ~ ~ . 0) N en m 'CO G 0 fi 0 y r
un a4 .4 en fl 4ý L 4"
an 0 5 i 14 CD o ANY .4 0D 0% IC344 .
N3 -' 0 %.
4~~ 0'0 n '
r- N , 04 Cn P- '0 w0' 0 a .-
0 0an. .4 0% N '0 4 4 0p.
an an f- '0 4 14 Nr. '0 10 4J
6-.4 0 '0 c!N43~~e U0 0 .4 n anC
- C> N n AM '0 0 o 0 0 e00n 0 0 0
C44%I a 0 P, 10
. ~ ~ ~ l 0 n - n0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 00 an t e
61
S4)
.c L, A0 .0 C. ( F 3 43 4 .0. ~ * 1w 0 0 X ~ . 0 .0 . 0 -
E3 4' 4-C go2 'C 'C q0 Z 0 .' C
23
0 00,
zz00
N2 E
0 0o
- - - H -4
W EE>
f-a 0) C
u~~~. 0 J .0 c 1 .
fn E-4
Z -4
Oco(0 J-
N Q (D4 -1 "1.0,0 a)44 u 0
uid'~j;oui."uo u0 0 -rd
24
Lo
TrrT ill ITT~To
Ja j W_ _
0- -
" "i 0I- ccwu mF-4 j0 E Z
-u~ ~~ -4 4)C -
rQM-44J0ý4 C) 4J -L r- )
:D4 En W U 4 ,oe _ _ _ 1.
p.4
J
C.)-
0C0
p.44- E-
0 cc
01-4 &-4
o 0 i z
0 ý0
ý4-4
0*000
A4d 'D-4 JOU ~I ~ 03j~
25
It should be noted that the distance scales on Figures 4 and
5 are the maximum distances at which the stated concentrations would be
expected. Lines of constant peak concentration enclose an approximately
elliptical area with the major axis equal to the plotted downwind
distances.
Upper Atmospheric Effects.
Water: In the stratospheric layer, the sounding rocket emitting
the largest amount of water is the Aerobee 200. The exhaust cloud spread
required before the H20 concentration falls to the ambient value given
in the U. S. Standard Atmosphere was estimated. At 25 km altitude the
effects of the cloud would blend into the ambient background by the time
2the cloud had expanded to an area of 995 m . At 60 km altitude the cloud
2
would have to expand to about 0.80 km2 to reach an equilibrium with ambient
H20 concentrations.
The effect of water vapor (or any other exhaust emission as
will be shown subsequently) from a sounding rocket upon the ozone con-
centration can be considered as negligible because of the small area
covered by the exhaust cloud. The rocket may create a small hole in
the ozone layer but the photochemical processes taking place in the
atmosphere will replenish quickly the supply of ozone in that volume.
The potential effect of H20 on the Earth's heat balance,
together with the effect of CO2 , is discussed in the next section.
26
Carbon Dioxide: Estimates of the area in the stratosphere
into which an Aerobee 200 -produced cloud * would have to expand before
the carbon dioxide density would reach that of the ambient air were
made as in the case of water vapor. For CO at 25 km the cloud must2
expand to 365 m2 before the CO2 would reach ambient levels. At 60 km
the cloud would drop below ambient levels of CO2 concentration after22
it expanded to 0.015 km
The principal concerns regarding large increases of CO2 and
H20 in the upper atmosphere and above are related to the effects these
constituents would have on the global radiation balance, through absorption
or scattering of incoming or outgoing radiation. The above estimates
of the area required for diffusion of H20 and CO2 to background levels
indicate that emissions of these compounds will have negligible effects.
The estimated cumulative yearly emissions resulting from the
launch of NASA sounding rockets (predicated on the projected average launch
frequency through 1980) are given in Table 8. The total estimated amounts
of HC1, CO, A12 03 , H20, and CO2 that would be deposited in the various
layers of the atmosphere in one year are given in this table. The
emissions from a Titan IllE/Centaur launch are also shown in Table 8
for comparison purposes. A comparison of the total projected annual
"emissions of the NASA Sounding Rocket Program with a single Titan IIIE/
Centaur launch illustrates the small scale of the Sounding Rocket Program.
The minor nature of the impacts of the Titan IllE/Centaur program has been
* Worst case.
27
0 m '0
a 0
o ~ c cc 0
0'
C;00
.41
0 10 in '.4 04 4 0
00 CD' 0r~~~~ 4 m cc In -0 n C10 N4 IM'
oG0 4 0 40 do0
94 C4 CD en Go a, ~od 4 4%-w 0 0 %a 0 In 4 a w a0 a . IW. C4 N0 cc a , 0 4 aa a N CLP
Pb~~1 -00N N b '
>0 4>
PM 0
.4 Pb
o~. 'c'0' N P
r'4
E-4 40 GO -to 0 b 0 P .
0 U0
'0~i 4, Pb 0 0 S
Ca :u 0Sb . 4 P b Pb a
94 .4P * 4 6
0-4 awb -'0 00 00
N '0 .4, -Z.c
28
shown previously. (15) The information contained in this document shows
that the NASA Sounding Rocket Program has essentially no effect upon the
environment.
Hydrogen Chloride: Hydrogen chloride emissions could have an
effect on the ionization level in the upper atmosphere. If a change in
ionization level is to have an effect on radio wave transmission (the
only effect known to be of importance), there would need to be an
emission of HCI in layers above approximately 90 km (the nominal base
of the E layer of the ionosphere). No research rockets in the program
deposit HCl above 60 km. Therefore, there will be no problem with the
ionization level.
Engine Tests
Engine tests differ from launches in that all of the
propellant is consumed at ground level. However, the high
temperature of the exhaust gases causes them to rise in a buoyant
plume. The downwind concentrations of the exhaust gases are
dependent on the height of this buoyant rise, and any elevation
contributed by the persistence of the exhaust jet.
Ground test firings of the Aerobee 350 sustainer are probably
the critical case for the vehicles considered here. Using the method
-suggested by Reference 16, a buoyant rise of 353 meters was calculated.
Using this value as the cloud rise, peak downwind concentrations were
estimated by the multi-point source dispersion model previously described.( 1 1 )
The maximum downwind concentration of CO predicted was 2.7 ppm, well within
suggested exposure limits.
29
Calculations indicate that ground test firings of the Astrobee
F and Black Brant VC can produce CO concentrations of 2.2 and 0.6 ppm,
respectively, at 2 km from the test site. Corresponding HCI concentrations
would be 1.8 and 1.2 ppm. Tests are made by the manufacturers of the
various motors at their own test facilities.
Tests of motors other than the Astrobee F and Black Brant VC
used by the research vehicles would have smaller effects due either to
the smaller motor sizes or to the lower concentrations of pollutants in
the exhaust.
Engine tests are performed at relatively remote sites, and
access to the sites is controlled. Suitable precautions are taken to
insure the safety of the test crew, including remotely controlled oper-
ations and the use of protective equipment.
Abnormal Launches and Accidents
On-pad accidents, either a cold spill of liquid propellant
(no fire) or a fire involving solid propellant motors, and early
in-flight failures might produce significant ground level concentrations
of toxic materials.
The volatilities of IFRNA, aniline, and furfuryl alcohol are
sufficiently low that a serious hazard is not created by cold spills.
Under ordinary meteorological conditions, the concentration of aniline
and furfuryl alcohol downwind of a cold spill will fall below a probable
public emergency exposure criterion of 5 ppm (Table 5 and Reference 5)
within 60 m.
30
Calculations of the downwind concentrations of HCI and CO
due to an on-pad fire involving NASA sounding rockets, using buoyant
rise and the multi-point source dispersion model described previously,
are summarized in Figures 6 and 7. These data indicate that the resulting
exhaust cloud will not create a hazardous situation outside a limited
control area. Aborts or failures occurring within the first 2 seconds
of flight involving complete burning of the propellant would produce
less effect than would on-pad fires.
Summary of Sounding RocketEffects on Air Quality
Emissions into the upper troposphere are rapidly diluted by
turbulent mixing and wind shear in that layer. No local or global
ground level concentrations of significance will result. Emissions
into the stratosphere, the mesosphere, and the thermosphere will not
result in detectable ground level concentrations.
HCI and CO emissions from the individual research rocket
launches present hazardous conditions only very close to the launch
pad. This hazard is very modest and, even under the most unfavorable
meteorological conditions, the hazard is estimated to be confined to
the controlled areas.
There is no significant effect on the upper atmosphere from
research rockets launched by NASA. Current activities are many orders
of magnitude below activities which would be expected to produce detect-
able changes in the upper atmosphere.
31
S rz,0~0
L0 0
le. 00
W E- < *
H~ CC, C)
C44 w w
1. 1-4Q
0)0) t40)0
E-4 0
0__ 0 CD 4 E-L)) L-
'00. H Ar
00, Q)) cr-~ a~
9-, .. ~ U ~4 C)
00
"-4 4-4 cM -4 '. X
>__ _ __ _ _
0 ~~r- ca u ~ W ~cd u )0
uidd> [-4~ jo uo eSuuj
32
00
CID~
CM 0Iuu E
UE--4
E- E
co) C:) u)
0-4
0 0 Z
0. Zz C -
o 0 H
C- 0( u
cc
F-4400
1-4 __ ____ _
En) L).-
0 >__( 4 > -4 0
P4~ 0
4.1
0 )
0 CDW N 0 OD-
0
wdd 'i0H go uoijeauazuoD ->led
33
Accidents or abnormal launches of the NASA research vehicles
considered here are not expected to cause air pollutant concentrations
exceeding the exposure criteria except in the immediate vicinity (about
30 meters) of the launch pad where access is carefully controlled. No
other effects of significance, either in the lower or upper atmosphere,
are expected.
34
WATER QUALITY
Source and Nature of Pollutants
The NASA Sounding Rocket Program may contribute potential
pollutants to bodies of water in the following ways:
"* On-pad accidents and propellant spills (for liquid
propellants) which could result in eventual delivery
of pollutants to local drainage systems.
"* In-flight failures which may result in vehicle hardware
and propellants falling into oceans, lakes, or
streams.
"* Normal flight, which results in the impact of spent
stages (containing some residual propellants) and
other rocket hardware into a body of water.
"* Reentry and subsequent failure to recover payload.
"* Normal flight or failures which could result in some
quantities of propellant reaching land surfaces with the
possibility of some surface or groundwater contamination.
The possibilities of water pollution are associated primarily
with toxic materials which may be released to and are soluble in the water
'environment. For sounding rockets, the rocket propellants are the dominant
source of such materials, although consideration must be given also to
soluble materials originating from hardware and miscellaneous materials
and to certain toxic combustion products.
35
Impact on the Environment
Potential sources of pollutants from sounding rockets to the
water environment and the major pollutants are given below:
Source Potential Pollutants'
Hardware Heavy metal ions (iron, copper, cadmium,
silver, magnesium, titanium, vanadium,chromium, manganese, cobalt, nickel,zinc, tin, lead) and miscellaneous
compounds
Solid Propellants Ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, asphalt,nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine, plasti-
cizer, polybutadiene, polyurethane,
polysulfide, polyvinylchloride, acrylicacid
Liquid Propellants Red fuming nitric acid inhibited withhydrofluoric acid, aniline-furfuryl
alcohol (65% aniline-35% furfuryl alcohol)
Combustion Products Hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid,aluminum chloride.
Hardware
Jettisoned stages and hardware will corrode and, thus, contribute
various metal ions to the water environment. In major part, such hardware
consists of aluminum, steel, plastics, fiber-reinforced plastics, and
electronic components. A large number of different compounds and elements
are used in small amounts in sounding rocket vehicles and payloads; for
example, lead and tin in soldered electrical connections, silver in silver-
soldered joints, cadmium from cadmium-plated steel fittings, and copper
from wiring. The rate of corrosion of such materials is slow in comparison
with the mixing and dilution rates expected in a water environment, and,
hence, toxic concentrations of metal ions will not result. The miscellaneous
materials (e.g., battery electrolytes) are present in such small quantities
that only extremely localized and temporary effects would be expected.
36
Propellants
Sounding rockets do not have a vehicle destruct system (Aerobee
liquid propellant rockets have a radio-controlled valve to cut off the
propellant flow) and, thus, any in-flight failure could result in some
of the propellant reaching the aquatic or land environment. During the
past 10 years, approximately 97 percent of the sounding rocket firings
have been successful (Table 9). As shown in Table 8, the projected
future average launch rate is approximately 80 sounding rockets/year,
and some of these launches could result in quantities of propellants
entering the aquatic environment.
Solid Propellants. About 80 percent of the stages used in NASA
sounding rockets have employed solid propellants. Many of these solid
propellants are composed of plastics or rubbers such as polyvinylchloride,
polyurethane, polybutadiene, polysulfide, etc., mixed with ammonium per-
chlorate. The plastics and rubbers are generally considered nontoxic
and, in the water, would be expected to decompose and disperse at a
very slow rate.
The ammonium perchlorate found in solid propellants is contained
within the matrix of rubber or plastic and will dissolve slowly. The
toxicity is expected to be relatively low as computed from the data
(17)available for sodium chlorate . As a worst case, toxic concentrations
of ammonium perchlorate would be expected only within a few meters of the
source.
37
0)44 Ur-. 'r- co r- N- r"N
00u ON CN ON ON ON O O N
,4
u- 1-4
En4
oa)
0OQ) r- -. rN 0 %D ". .j
E-4JJ c n 00- in~ Ul(41 r-4 -
0 O0
V-4 C14 C1 D -4 - 04C
to N4- 00' r- a\.~
o C) C-'4 (NJ -1.0
-4J sd' -4!4
l> a)!C0 CO'0 oON4
0 . 000 \0~ 0N mt' 4OJ
ON ON~ r, wl~ON (NJ '.D m4 LP) -4 C- - OON ON 0. Cf, N- C) N -4 -- 1 $4
44 $4 $4
U ) 4 en1 N-\ m4 ON - -) -4 0nU-0)> ti-' I-- -. *. -- - %N ON) 0 E\C
t'4 ON N-0 C-' C'% C-', - 1 ' -4 -0 w -4 ON C) -4t
U'.0 C\ m 'D. 140 CO "0
a .0 . . .. - Ln' L(n m 0 p~ lC-r. I- %D '. i- -4 -4 -4 0..fl
0 o '.0 0t4-4
I -.. -. -- Iý -. ON ON C0
01 l l\c I N-4 1-4 .c u~C
-4 0 --Nq4 O-
I C4 - Ln -. CI 4J N- CoO'.- CO CO Cr' Li' a)0 C) l)
-~~~ 0 pC C 40-00 C)' 0l C) 0. 4404CC) C14 C14 4!) IC Unm c a
CY) C) 0 -- m O C> '0 a) M.C' CCC-4 01 Cf' I 0 0 .0 '0'- C) 4J :1-UCY 0* to U 04 4! U O ) 0.U .
.0 '' C)C- M0 4U 1. 0 o 00- co 0 !
>1 Cl) .00 00~ "0JC C: -
1 ON- 01< C14 U ) I 00. CU C 00 1_ W C n4O $-4 1 - - -- I~ -- .00 %! C\ $44 .----.
$4 00 0U .- 4 -0 0n C)) %CO.w lZ0 W u H
38
There is a high toxicity rating(18) associated with nitro-
glycerine (from double base propellants) which could cause a localized
problem. For a solid propellant rocket, a "worst case" accident would
involve an intact Javelin in a water environment. This is the largest
solid propellant sounding rocket currently in use and carries approxi-
mately 1815 kg of double base (nitrocellulose/nitroglycerine) solid
propellant, and an intact Javelin would have approximately 510 kg of
nitrogylcerine in the propellant grain. The concentration of nitro-
glycerine in the water at the impact site would be limited by the
solubility of nitroglycerine (1.8 kg/m 3 at 200C( 24 )) and further
limited by the solubility when combined with the nitrocellulose.
Using procedures similar to those described later for liquid
propellants, a maximum radius can be calculated at which a specified
maximum allowable concentration (MAC) will be reached. In this case, a
radius of approximately 14 meters was calculated as the extent where
the MAC (25 x 10-3 kg/m 3(18)) will be exceeded. It will require approxi-
mately 30 seconds to reach this radius using a diffusion coefficient of
1 m 2/sec and assuming that the nitrogylcerine dissolves rapidly enough
to maintain saturation at the impact site. Since the initial concen-
trations are limited by the solubility, these concentrations, and the
radius where the concentrations will exceed the MAC, will exist for
longer periods of time (approximately 1 to 2 hr) than for the case of
the liquid propellants which are quickly dispersed. The lower solubility
of the nitroglycerine when combined with the nitrocellulose/plasticizer
was not considered in these calculations and, thus, the affected area
would actually be smaller than stated, although the time factor could
be considerably extended.
39
Liquid Propellants. The Aerobee series of rockets, as previously
noted, uses inhibited red fuming nitric acid and aniline-furfuryl alcohol
propellants. Spills, on-pad vehicle failures, and in-flight failures could
cause a release of the propellants to the aquatic environment.
Provisions normally are made for containing on-pad spills and
disposing of the spilled propellant without contaminating the water environ-
ment. The largest of these liquid propellant sounding rockets, the Aerobee
350, is launched infrequently (two launches during 1959-1969) and has only
been launched from a facility (Wallops Station) which is well equipped
to handle spill problems. Current plans call for 1 to 2 launches in 1973
and 2 to 3 launches in 1974. The quantity of propellant (1966 kg) involved
in the Aerobee 350 can be contained and disposed of without major problems.
If the IFRNA and aniline-furfuryl alcohol were spilled simul-
taneously, the hypergolic reaction would ignite the propellants. The
resulting fire would be expected to consume most or all of the propellant,
resulting in combusion products normally handled as an air pollution
problem. Similarly, an on-pad vehicle failure would normally be expected
to result in a fire which would consume the propellant. The only exhaust
product of potential concern to the water quality would be the HF which
is considered subsequently.
When a volume of liquid propellant is suddenly released into
a water body, assuming it has not ignited due to hypergolic properties,
it will diffuse and disperse into the surrounding water. This process
will cause a certain volume of water to be subjected to propellant
40
concentrations equal to or higher than the allowable concentration.
Since the quantities of propellant involved with sounding rockets are
relatively small and the probability of a vehicle reaching the ocean
environment with a full load of propellant is also very small, it would
be expected that the volume of water subjected to concentrations equal
to or exceeding allowable concentrations would be negligible.
For example, consider a "worst case" situation consisting of
a fully loaded Aerobee 350 impacting in the ocean and releasing approxi-
mately 1966 kg of IFRNA/aniline-furfuryl alcohol. As a classical
diffusion problem (20',21) this case can be considered as diffusion
from a point source into a semi-infinite volume. Reasonable values
for the MAC for aniline-furfuryl alcohol (19,22) and nitric acid( 1 7 )
-4 3 3are 2 x 10 kg/mi and 0.107 kg/m , respectively. The value for the
aniline-furfuryl alcohol is based on furfuryl alcohol only, because
of the greater toxicity of this compound. The furfuryl alcohol used
in Aerobee sounding rockets is approximately 10 percent of the total
propellant mass.
Proudman( 2 3 ) has tabulated values of typical eddy-diffusion
coefficients for the mixing of sea water of different salinities. The
values obtained are based on measurements taken in various bodies of
water and show that there is an extremely wide variation in the coefficient,
dependent on the local currents, degree of vertical mixing, salinity, and
temperature gradients. The actual values range from 3.6 x 10-5 m 2/sec in
the case of stationary vertical mixing to as high as 1 x 104 m2 /sec in the
case of stationary mixing horizontally along the current. These values are
41
highly dependent upon the local conditions. A value for average sea
conditions obviously lies somewhere between these extremes. Recognizing
that, in most situations, the vertical diffusion is much less than the
horizontal diffusion, a value of 1 m 2/sec was chosen as a representative
value and was used to calculate the results presented below. It must be
remembered that choosing a smaller diffusion coefficient simply increases
the time required for the pollutant to reach the maximum radius specified
by the MAC without affecting the radius; similarly, a larger diffusion
coefficient will decrease the time.
For the quantities of propellant contained in a fully loaded
Aerobee 350, a radius of approximately 75 meters can be calculated as
the extent where the MAC will be exceeded for an aniline-furfuryl
alcohol mixture. Using the diffusion coefficient discussed above, the
time required to reach this radius is about fifteen minutes. Obviously,
longer times would be predicted for areas with few currents or little
mixing and shorter times for areas where very strong (tidal) currents
would speed the mixing process.
A similar calculation for the quantities of nitric acid involved
in an Aerobee 350 shows a radius of approximately 13 meters as the maximum
radius at which the MAC will be reached. The time to reach this radius
using the above diffusion coefficient is about 25-30 seconds. In the case
of nitric acid in the ocean, the 13-meter radius is probably a conservative
estimate since, in an ocean environment, the basic qualities of the water
would quickly neutralize the acid and reduce the toxicity rapidly. For a
body of fresh water, the calculations would be similar except that a smaller
diffusion coefficient should be used (ire., time period to maximum radius
is longer) due to the less intense currents, wave action, and surface agitation.
42
Products of Combustion
Some sounding rockets represent a potential threat to water
quality because of the toxic nature of certain chemical species in their
combustion products when dissolved in water. There is no way, however,
in which the true potential of this risk can be assessed because an
estimate of the fraction of the exhaust product which might reach the
water as well as its likely distribution is indeterminable. However,
a maximum theoretical effect can be computed on the basis that all of
the active chemical species reaches the water and dissolves and dilutes
to its MAC. This has been done for all NASA sounding rockets whose exhaust
products contain chemical species which are significantly soluble and of
a toxic nature. The affected volumes shown in Table 10 are trivial except
possibly for the AMCI 3 produced by the Astrobee F and the HCl produced
by the Black Br- •t VC. In a large body of water, this quantity of AMCI 3
would not be expected to produce any long-term effects since it would be
diluted quickly and dispersed as well as decomposed to relatively innocuous
compounds. In the improbable case where all of the ACI3 from the Astrobee
F would be released into a small pond or other small body of water, consid-
erable damage to the biota associated with that body of water could be
expected. However, aluminum salts are known to hydrolyze rapidly at high
dilutions, particularly in alkaline waters, forming the relatively harmless
aluminum hydroxide and chloride ion. Consequently, the toxicity of this
compound in natural waters may be substantially less than indicated.
43
%n.) -.1
0 ~ 6. 0- S. 1
4)4)4 00
4 0c.00 z H
0 w )- )
000 e ~ 4 4U) 4
Tv .0
0 C4200
E-4)
0
04) 0.
464 x 0
4) )0 )4
A 0
0 c c, 0
0 X-
o0 4 - I-'0
C.0 ) -0 0 .0
64 -t-
wL J -% OD a, C4 04
0.0
0 -4
414
E4 je ae 0 0 - 1
en) en - -
0 41
w) 4)om
44
For the case of the HCI produced by the Black Brant VC, the
HCI would be expected to disperse quickly and be diluted and neutralized
in any water body greater in size than that indicated in Table 10.
Neutralization would be especially rapid in the ocean because of the
basic properties of ocean water (pH = 8.1 to 8.3)(17). It is the
resulting pH rather than the initial concentration of HCI that governs
lethality toward aquatic life. In fresh waters the pH of natural streams
and ponds vary widely, depending upon the soils and vegetation of the
watershed; thus, the effects on bodies of fresh water could be much
greater than the effects in the ocean.
In the event that the KCl produced by the Aerobee 150 were to
reach a body of water some effects could be observed. However, any body
of water of significant size would quickly dilute any KC1 produced to
values harr: *ss to plant and animal life.
The Black Brant VC sounding rocket produces Al203 as an exhaust
product. Since aluminum oxide is essentially insoluble in water and the(17)
compound does not seem to have an appreciable toxicity for aquatic
organisms, the potential effect of this reaction product on the water
quality is insignificant.
It must be emphasized that the above estimates are for worst
case situations. Physical mechanisms by which a significant fraction of
the combustion products could be delivered to a limited body of water in
concentrated form involve unlikely combinations of events. No such events
are known to have occurred.
45
Biological Impacts
Few data are available on the effects of rocket propellants
on a water environment. Since the compounds of greatest interest
(nitric acid, aniline-furfuryl alcohol, nitroglycerine, etc.) are not
commonly found as pollutants in a water environment, it is not surprising
that they have received little study.
The toxic effects of rocket propellants on lower taxonomic
groups of marine life would be undetectable after a few days because
of the relatively small volume of water affected and the resiliency
of most species. In the open sea, planktonic species affected would
include forms such as diatoms, dinoflagellates (phytoplankton), copepods,
and euphausids (zooplankton). These forms of biota have great reproductive
potentials so a possible loss of most or all of these forms in the limited
areas that could be affected by a sounding rocket would be undetectable
after only a short time. These forms would repopulate the area quickly
after the concentrations of toxicants returned to low levels due to dis-
persion and dilution of the propellant by the water. The effects could
be more observable in fresh water or coastal regions. In coastal regions
the concentrations of larger crustaceans (e.g., crab and shrimp species)
and mollusks (e.g., clam species) and the limited depths and mixing
conditions leading to slower dispersion of the propellants could cause
a greater environmental impact. Larval forms of these species might be
susceptible to toxicants, but, again, in the case of sounding rockets,
the area affected would be small and the reproductive potential for most
of these animals is so large that a measurable long-term population density
46
effect is unlikely. Because of the generally small size of fresh water
lakes, ponds, and streams, the introduction of large quantities of pro-
pellants into such bodies could cause considerable local impact. However,
the propellant quantities involved in sounding rockets are small (See
Table 1) and most launch sites are located in ocean or desert areas
(See Table 11).
For the case of phytoplankton population in the ocean, growth is
generally regulated by such ecological factors as temperature, light, and
standing stocks. Nutrients such as phosphates, nitrates, silicates, etc.,
are normally abundant enough in marine waters that they do not exercise
a limiting influence on primary productivity. Even assuming that the
phytoplankton would be removed totally from a small volume of water by
some toxic compound, the phytoplankton from surrounding areas would repopu-
late the affected area as soon as the compound ceased to poison the water
involved. Since reproductive rates are quite high for most species of
phytoplankton, it would require only a few days for recovery to their
original densities.
Zooplankton reproductive rates are similar and standing stocks
are generally large so they also would be expected to repopulate rapidly
an area exposed to the effects of sounding rocket propellants. Thus, it
appears that there would be little likelihood of noticeable effect on
photoplankton or zooplankton from an introduction of sounding rocket
propellant into the sea.
47
TABLE 11. LAUNCH SITE CHARACTERISTICS ASRELATED TO POTENTIAL FOR WATERQUALITY DEGRADATION
Location Water Body Affected by Launch
ArgentinaChamical None (Land site)
Ascension Island (British) South Atlantic
AustraliaWoomera None (Land site)
BrazilNatal Atlantic OceanRio Grande Beach
CanadaFort Churchill Hudson BayResolute Bay Arctic Ocean
France (South America)French Guiana Atlantic Ocean
IndiaThumba Laccadine Sea (Arabian Sea)
ItalySardinia Tyrrhenian Sea (Mediterranean)
KenyaSan Marco Platform Formosa Bay (Indian Ocean)
NorwayAndoya Norwegian Sea
Netherlands (S. Amer.)Dutch Guiana,Surinam None (Land site)
New ZealandKarikari Pacific Ocean
PakistanSonmiani (Karachi) Sonmiani Bay (Arabian Sea)
SpainArenosilia None (Land site)
SwedenKronogard None (Land site)Kiruna None (Land site)
United StatesWhite Sands, N.M. None (Land site)Cape Kennedy, Fla. Atlantic OceanWallops Station, Va. " "Eglin AFB, Fla. Gulf of MexicoPoint Mugu, Calif. Pacific OceanKauai, Hawaii it
Kwajalein, Marshall Islands " "Tonopah, Nevada None (Land site)McMurdo Sound, Antarctica McMurdo SoundPt. Barrow, Alaska Arctic OceanKeweenaw Penisula, Michigan Lake SuperiorPoker Flat, Alaska None (Land site)
48
Ultimate Fate of Water Pollutants
Propellants introduced into an ocean environment will undergo
chemical alterations caused by the dissolved salts or gases in the water
or by being metabolized by the various life forms. In this way, nitric
acid would be expected to be neutralized quickly, converted to nitrates,
and metabolized by plant life. Other propellant components would also be
expected to degrade and disperse into relatively innocuous materials.
Currently, at best only generalized information is available concerning
the degradation and metabolization of propellants; information specifically
pertinent to the marine environment is almost nonexistent. However, the
question of "ultimate fate" as such is probably not as important as is
the rate at which the pollutants could be expected to degrade. For some
compounds (e.g., nitric acid, hydrochloric acid), the rate of degradation
could be comparable to the rate of spreading or diffusion. At the other
extreme, solid propellants probably would not degrade for a number of
years because of their chemical stability.
Summary of Sounding Rocket Effectson Water Quality
In general, water quality is not expected to be affected signif-
icantly from the operation of the NASA Sounding Rocket Program. Even in
the situation of a "worst case" involving the impact of a fully loaded
vehicle (probability of occurrence being near zero) in the ocean environ-
ment, the volume involved is small and the effects are not persistent; i.e.,
the toxicants will disperse and degrade to values below the MAC within a
very short time. The maximum environmental effect upon the water quality
49
and life processes would be experienced if there were a near-shore (shallow
water) or freshwater impact of one of these fully loaded vehicles. This
is not regarded as a likely event; but, even in this case, the small quan-
tities of propellant involved would not produce any permanent impact on
the environment. For inshore marine areas and small freshwater lakes, the
immediate effects would be more drastic than those for a deep-water impact
because of the smaller volume, shallower water, lack of currents, etc., to
disperse the toxic materials quickly. However, since the area involved
would be small and the reproductive potential for most of the plants and
animals involved is so large, a measurable long-term population density
effect is unlikely.
NOISE
Source and Nature
Large rocket motors can be relatively powerful sources of noise.
The major source of this noise appears to be the interaction of the exhaust
jet with the atmosphere. Both the acoustic power emitted and the frequency
spectrum of the noise are affected by the size of the motor and the specific
impulse, as well as by design details.
For operational motors, the acoustic power emitted is approximately
proportional to the thrust, and hence, the sound pressure level at a fixed
distance is approximately proportional to the square root of the thrust.
The noise generated by sounding rockets may be described as
composed predominantly of low frequencies, of short duration, and of
relatively infrequent occurrence.
50
Because of their small size, relative to space launch vehicles
and some military missiles, little attention has been given to the noise
generated by sounding rockets. Consequently, it is necessary to extrapolate
the results of field measurements of larger rocket motors. Of these, the
first stage of the Scout launch vehicle (thrust of about 400,000 N) is most
comparable to that of sounding rockets.
Figure 8 is a frequency-intensity spectra taken at three distances
from a Scout launch. In general, the higher frequencies are attenuated
more rapidly with distance than are the low frequencies. The low fre-
quencies are less harmful to human hearing and are less annoying than the
high frequencies (25). Figure 9 is an average intensity-time relationship
at a distance of 1500 meters from a Scout launch. The entire event,
measured within 20 dB of the peak intensity, lasts less than 20 seconds.
At distances greater than that corresponding to Figure 9 , the duration of
the event is greater, but, of course, the peak intensities are lower.
Figure 10 is a plot of the distance from the launch site at which
a specified overall sound pressure level (OSPL) is reached as determined
by the thrust of the rocket motor. Shown on the figure are the distances
at which 120 dB would occur for five space launch vehicles or military
missiles, including one liquid propellant system. Because the observed
OSPL depends in part on the geometry and topography of the launch site and
on the meteorological conditions prevailing, the plotted points are based
on the upper bounds of the observed OSPL-distance relationships.
51
12~ - - -- I ---- i ---- - - - - Threshold of _
-- ::l::1:L~~. :Discomfort -
-1 Auto Horn at 1 mn- ~- ---- Distance From Source:',---
,1~__ 7. 6:: 0: m
110- U)-16 :: . - -
-- ~ r- "-- -i- Interior of DC-6
1 71 0z rk ees
900-4 )
Automobilem
07-
80
:7 Mahies -
60 ____4_
44 780- 1 -3 -7- 10 0- 60- 10 40 40
Octaveic BanstH
FIGURE 8 MAIHM FREE FLGTSU7 PCR FRASOT1UC~
52
I--- -. - - - - - -- --- 7-
4f ----
2-11
-E71 N..-i -, -
- -2-0- - - I -- -
-10 0- - I
Reatv Tie Seconds
FIGUREi 9. TYPCA TIEDRTO-FTE OS RDCDB
SCU ANHA ADSAC F150MTR(6
53
41 M
IYX 'I
I 2 1C14-v F
0 __
,-,-r-- I
Iij 0t OZ'LTaqaV ,
caCc-- cn jFD u lg: I g
Ig F qoTo
-~ Er
G aaq C/
Ci
I-~~ -En* H
L4_4
F F 111 OO~ OLT aqo~~v -
FT 11- A~ HI 'r'i
I0 F~~os
0 - -4
T h T-4$I ~ .
c F0)jEgI- Fr- c n nIrr p i n l n n
54
Impact on the Environment
Noise can affect the environment, with perhaps its most important
effects on man. Noise can also have an effect on structures, animals, and
plants. For the size of rocket motors considered here, noise levels
sufficient to cause structural damage would occur only very close to the
launch site, at distances less than 400 meters for the largest motor.
Damage to plants might occur at noise levels similar to those causing
structural damage, although no such damage from rocket launches is known to
have been observed. The effects of noise on domestic animals and wildlife
might be expected to be similar to those on man: hearing damage at
sufficiently high noise levels, and various psychological effects such as
annoyance or excitement and pleasure. The fact that several Osprey reg-
ularly nest within 100 meters of the Rocket Launch Area at Wallops Station
indicates that the noise problem has minimal effect on wildlife.
Table 12 shows a set of tolerance limits. The Damage Risk Values
are thresholds beyond which hearing damage might occur. In the absence of
specific information, the limits of Table 12 may be presu'ed to apply to
domestic animals and wildlife in addition to humans.
TABLE 12. NOISE LEVELS FOR DAMAGE RISK AND ANNOYANCE( 2 5 , 7 )
Hearing Damage Annoyance Damage to Structures
Risk Values Threshold Threshold
130 dB, 10 seconds
125 dB, 30 seconds 130 dB (frequencies90 dB (A) lower than 37 Hz)
120 dB, 60 seconds
55
Comparing the risk values of Table 12 with Figure 10, it is
evident that no appreciable risk to either hearing or structures exists
at distances ranging from about 20 meters for Arcas to about 400 meters
for Javelin. There is no difficulty in excluding personnel from such close
approaches to a launch. Potentially annoying sound levels may exist at
distances from about 2 km to perhaps 40 kIn; however, due to the short
duration of the noise, the low frequencies, and the infrequent occurrence,
the annoyance is minimal.
It may be noted that a four-engine jet aircraft 150 meters
overhead can produce noise levels approaching or exceeding those of a
rocket launch at the closest approach normally permitted by uncontrolled
or unprotected personnel. Also, unmuffled motorcycles, construction noise
(compressors and hammers), and some rock-and-roll bands closely approach
these noise levels.
56
IMPACT OF SPENT ROCKETS AND PAYLOADS
In the normal launch of a sounding rocket, one or more rocket
stages and often the payload will impact, intact, in the ocean or unpopu-
lated land area. To avoid endangering, to any appreciable extent, any
property and any living plant or animal species, including man, the
location of the impacts is carefully planned. Since the flight path
of sounding rockets is influenced by atmospheric winds, careful consid-
eration is given to wind velocities before any launch. The impact range
of a given rocket and its dispersion about the predicted impact points
are important since they may be the limiting factor in the ability to
launch a particular vehicle from a specific site. For example, at the
present time vehicles like the Javelin are not launched at the White
Sands Missile Range (WSMR) for this reason.
The impact areas are carefully selected. If it is an ocean
area, ship traffic is restricted so that there will be no hazard to
property or people. Aircraft and radar surveillance is exercised
over these areas when sounding rocket launches are planned. In the
case of land areas, exclusion is practiced and the areas are under
surveillance during periods of activity.
When spent stages or payloads impact in the ocean, no recovery
is attempted. The potential effects are covered under water quality.
When spent stages or payloads impact on land, it is planned that this
occurs in nonproductive areas. For example, White Sands is a desert
area and only wasteland surface is disturbed. In northern areas, for
example Fort Churchill, any launch over land will impact on the tundra.
Because the rocket is fin stabilized, it is pointed nose down on impact.
57
The only evidence of the impact is a small hole in the tundra indicative
of the spot below which the rocket has buried itself. Normally, no recovery
is attempted so, without additional disturbance, the location of the impact
is soon obliterated by natural processes.
In some sounding rocket programs, however, the payload (experi-
ment package) and/or some portion of the rocket will be recovered. The
NASA Sounding Rocket Program is currently utilizing parachute recovery
systems to support Nike Apache, Nike Cajun, Aerobee 150, Aerobee 170,
Aerobee 200, and Aerobee 350 operational vehicles. Additional systems
are nearing operational status to support the requirements of the Black
Brant IIIB, Black Brant VC, and Nike Tomahawk vehicles.
Four types of launchers are used for the NASA Sounding Rocket
Program. They are the (1) tube launcher, (2) zero length launcher,
(3) rail launcher, and (4) tower launcher. The first three are easily
transportable. Although the fourth, the tower launcher, is normally a
permanent fixture at an established rocket launching range, there is a
portable launch tower available for the Aerobee 150. The tower launcher
is utilized for launching the higher performance vehicles to minimize
impact dispersions.
From 1959 to the present time, over 1600 sounding rockets have
been launched in the conduct of experiments by NASA. As evidence of the
effectiveness of the precautions observed, no casualties, injuries, or
property damage are known to have resulted from impact of stages,
payloads, or fragments. Based on worldwide experience to date, the extent
of the hazard from sounding rocket experiments is considered negligible.
58
ALTERNATIVES
As indicated previously, the sounding rocket vehicle
activities which currently contribute to potential environmental impact
are limited to the launch of scientific payloads. There are no
significant development programs currently underway which relate
to sounding rocket vehicles or their propulsion.
Two types of alternatives logically can be considered for
the Sounding Rocket Program as it relates to this Environmental Impact
Statement. First, alternative methods for obtaining the same information
are discussed. Second, propulsion or vehicle alternatives within the
Sounding Rocket Program are considered. A third alternative might appear
to be the cessation of the program itself; however, although this would
eliminate any related potential impact, it is not worthy of serious
consideration. The achievements realized from the Sounding Rocket
Program in the past(28) far outweigh the extremely small environmental
impacts which have been discussed in other portions of this statement.
The alternatives to using sounding rockets for measurements below
about 40 km in the atmosphere consist of using aircraft and balloons for
certain types of experiments. In general, however, the scientific ad-
vantages, low cost, and minimal environmental effect of sounding rockets
make them a desirable vehicle and it is for these reasons they are used.
Above 200 km, satellites can be used to carry instruments for the measure-
ment of various phenomena. Each of these vehicles (balloons, aircraft,
sounding rockets, and satellites) has unique performance characteristics
and each is used to exploit these. However, aircraft and satellites would
normally result in greater impact on the environment if used in place of
sounding rockets.
59
The unique characteristics of sounding rockets which allow
them to be launched quickly to observe fleeting phenomena, simultaneously
from many locations on earth, or in a timed and carefully controlled
sequence cannot be matched by any other method. Satellites are the only
other devices which can provide a stabilized, oriented spacecraft
capable of conducting sophisticated scientific experiments, unencumbered
by the major effects of the earth's atmosphere, gravity, or other
environment during the coasting or free fall portions of the trajectory.
Sounding rockets have much lower cost and less harmful environmental
effects than satellites.
In the second category, the use of alternative propellants
might eliminate some potential (but clearly minor) hazards. Some
rockets use solid propellants which emit HCl. Other solid propellant
formulations might be developed which would reduce or eliminate the
HCl in the combustion products. However, such alternative motors
would be expected to lead to increases in other objectionable emissions
such as CO.
The aniline-furfuryl alcohol mixture used as fuel in the
Aerobee liquid propellant sounding rocket engines has certain objection-
able features described previously. These engines might be replaceable
by LOX/kerosene or LOX/LH2 engines, for example. Such substitutions
would change combustion product compositions only slightly with the
60
most significant difference being the elimination of CO with the use
of the LOX/LH 2 system. Further, effects of spilled propellant in a
water environment essentially would be eliminated. There would be
no effect on noise. Although no specific estimate has been made,
past experience in developing space launch vehicles indicates the
costs of such an alternative would be significant. Also, the conven-
ience and simplicity obtained from using storable propellants would
be lost if a cryogenic system were adopted.
In view of the very limited environmental effect of the
current sounding rocket vehicles, no further consideration of any
of the above alternatives is recommended at this time.
61
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THEENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
In fulfilling its responsibility, the NASA OSS Sounding Rocket
Program has followed a philosophy that has always emphasized safety,
reliability, and economy in conducting experiments, both in near-space
and in the near and far reaches of the atmosphere.
This program provides a relatively inexpensive approach to
partial satisfaction of man's need to better understand, utilize,
predict, protect, and control his life-sustaining and, sometimes,
hostile environment.
It is impractical here to itemize all known and potential
environmental benefits (28) generated by past or planned sounding rocket
activities, but the general value can be expressed simply as follows.
Scientifically, more has been learned about our immediate environment
and that of the solar system in the last two decades than in all previous
decades combined. The space program has made a large contribution to the
knowledge gained. Such knowledge is fundamental to any realistic endeavor
to protect the environment. In the immediate, practical sense, slow but
noticeable improvement is being made in our ability to utilize this
recently acquired capability for such functions as comminications and
meteorology. The NASA Sounding Rocket Program makes a unique contribution
in the total effort to provide mankind with an operational capability to
measure, monitor, and manage environmental conditions and natural
resources from a local to a global scale.
62
Virtually all NASA sounding rocket experiments represent passive
payloads which in themselves have no environmental effect aside from that
associated with the launch and impact (or recovery) process. The launch
and impact processes represent only minor transient effects. On the other
hand, many of these experiments make contributions to the betterment of
mankind.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLECOMMIT1ENTS OF RESOURCES
The materials which make up a sounding rocket at launch are
largely irretrievable once the launch process is initiated. However,
they are replaced relatively easily and, in general, are replaceable from
domestic resources with relatively insignificant expenditure of manpower
and energy.
By far the largest mass of materials making up a sounding
rocket is the propellant. Propellants have been enumerated and defined
previously; they are common chemicals. Resources and energy required for
their production are insignificant in comparison with, for example,
the resources and energy required to produce 1 million barrels of jet
fuel per week, the current production rate for private, commercial,
and military jet aircraft. Considered as the equivalent mass of jet
fuel, the average yearly consumption of rocket propellants by sounding
rockets would support only one 747 flight from Washington, D. C., to
San Francisco, California.
63
After propellants, the next largest amounts of materials
are iron and aluminum. Other materials include plastics and glass,
as well as other metals such as nickel, chromium, titanium, lead,
zinc, copper, etc.* There may be small amounts of silver, mercury,
gold, and platinum. The quantities of materials of various kinds which
are utilized are insignificant in comparison with those used in one year
of production (10,000,000) of automobiles, for example. The average
yearly mass of flight hardware employed by the Sounding Rocket Program
for the past 12 years is equivalent to only 31 automobiles.
Perhaps the best available measure of the commitment of
resources to the NASA Sounding Rocket Program is the annual rate of
dollar expenditures on the program. This is expected to average
approximately $20M/yr through 1980. By far the largest fraction of
these expenditures is for wages and salaries. These expenditures
represent a relatively small fraction of the national economy. As
illustrated by this and the other examples given, no commitment of
any individual resource of major significance to the national economy
exists.
The composition of "typical" sounding rocket inert components canbe estimated as 78.2% steels, 20.2% Al, 0.4% Ti, and 1.2% miscellaneous.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
A-I
REFERENCES
(1) Anon., "The United States Sounding Rocket Program", NASA ReportNo. X-740-71-337, Sounding Rocket Division, Goddard Space FlightCenter, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Greenbelt,Maryland, July 1971.
(2) Corliss, William R., "NASA Sounding Rockets, 1958-1968. A HistoricalSummary", NASA SP-4401, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,Washington, D.C., 1971, Appendix B, Compendium of NASA SoundingRocket Firings, 1959-1968.
(3) Letter to the Honorable Clinton P. Anderson, Chairman, Committee onAeronautical and Space Sciences, U.S. Senate; from James C. Fletcher,NASA Administrator; September 29, 1971.
(4) Anon., "Historical Pocket Statistics", published semiannually byNational Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.,January 1972 and July 1972 issues.
(5) "Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants and Physical AgentsWith Intended Changes", American Conference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists, 1971.
(6) "Compendium of Human Responses to the Aerospace Environment", Vol. III,NASA CR-1205(III), November 1968.
(7) "Guide for Short-Term Exposure of the Public to Air Pollutants: II.Guide for Hydrogen Chloride", Advisory Center on Toxicology, NationalAcademy of Science-National Research Council, August 1971.
(8) "Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide", U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Publication AP-62, March 1970.
(9) Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 206, page 20513, October 23, 1971.
(10) Note from Advisory Center on Toxicology, National Academy of Science-National Research Council, April 1971.
ýiI) Rice, E. E.,"A Discussion of a 44 Layer-Atmospheric Dispersion Model",Report No. BMI-NLVP-ICM-73-10, Battelle Columbus Laboratories,February 10, 1973.
(12) Turner, D. B., 'Norkbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates", Office ofAir Programs, Publication No. AP-26, 1970.
(13) Craig, R. A., The Upper Atmosphere--Meteorology and Physics, AcademicPress, New York, 1965.
(14) Valley, S. A. (Ed.), "Handbook of Geophysics and Space Environments",Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Office of AerospaceResearch, 1965.
A-2
(15) "Environmental Statement for NASA OSS Launch Vehicle and PropulsionPrograms", NASA OSS, Washington, D.C., August 1, 1972.
(16) "Downwind Hazard Calculations for Titan IIIC Launches at KSC and VAFB"(Draft Copy), GCA Corporation, January, 1973.
(17) McKee, J. E., and Wolf, H. W., Water Quality Criteria, The ResourcesAgency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, PublicationNo. 3-A, 1963.
(18) Gleason, M. N. et al, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products,3rd Edition, Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, 1969.
(19) Browning, E., Toxicity and Metabolism of Industrial Solvents, Elsevier
Publishing Co., New York, 1965.
(20) Crank, J., The Mathematics of Diffusion, Oxford University Press, 1956.
(21) Perry, R. H., Chilton, C. H., and Kirkpatrick, S. D. (Ed.), ChemicalEngineers Handbook, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
(22) Jacobsen, K. H. et al, "The Toxicology of an Aniline-furfuryl-alcohol-hydrazine Vapor Mixture", Am. Ind. Hyg. Ass. J. 19: 91, 1958.
(23) Proudman, J., Dynamical Oceanography, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London,England, 1953.
(24) Hodgman, C. D. et al (Ed.), Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 44thEdition, Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, 1962-1963.
(25) Kryter, K. D., The Effects of Noise on Man, Academic Press, NewYork, 1970.
(26) Cole, J. N., Powell, R. G., and Hill, H. K., "Acoustic Noise andVibration Studies at Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex, AtlanticMissile Range: Volume 1, Acoustic Noise", Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, TR 61-608(1), 1962.AD 296852.
(27) Regier, A. A., Mayes, W. H., and Edge, P. M., Jr., "Noise ProblemsAssociated with Launching Large Space Vehicles", Sound, No. 6,pp 7-12, 1962.
(28) Newell, Homer E., Jr., Sounding Rockets, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,New York, 1959.
(29) Medrow, Karl R., "Compendium Summary-NASA Sounding Rocket Program",Sounding Rocket Division, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,Maryland, January 16, 1973.
(30) Rice, E. E., "Propellant and Exhaust Product Composition Data for14 NASA Sounding Rockets", Battelle-Columbus Laboratories Report No.BMI-SG-ICM-73-1, March 16, 1973.
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES
B-i
SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES
Figures B-I through B-5 present the relationships between
ground range and altitude for six sounding rockets which are considered
representative of the entire family of fourteen considered in this
Environmental Impact Statement. Also shown on these figures are burn out
altitudes of spent stages, parachute deployment altitude, and the
corresponding impact range.
The ground range-altitude plots shown in this Appendix should
be regarded as representative examples. Variations in payload mass and
launch angle can influence the trajectories. Nearly every mission
launched is unique in some sense, and vehicle trajectories are designed
to satisfy the unique requirements of the mission. For every launch,
trajectories are calculated at a level of detail impossible for the
generalized treatment required here. Full consideration is given to the
location of the impact points of jettisoned hardware and to the path
followed by the instantaneous impact point. When necessary, trajectories
are modified to control the impact point of jettisoned hardware and to
control the path of the instantaneous impact point.
B-2
Note: To convert to nautical miles, multiply kilometers by 0.54120 "
QE = 840 Symbol
PL = 4.5 kg C Stage BurnoutSea Level
100
80 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
60o
V4J
ACS40
20
0 20 46 60 80 100
Ground Range, km
FIGURE B-1. SAMPLE TRAJECTORIES FOR ARCAS AND SUPER ARCAS
B-3
Note: To convert to nautical miles, multiply kilometers by 0.54
50 -
QE = 70S
PL = 45.4 kg SymbolSea level OStage Burnout
40
30
S20
10
00 10 20 30 40 50
Ground Range, km
FIGURE B-2. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR ASTROBEE D
B-4
Note: To convert to nautical miles, multiply kilometers by 0.54
120QE = 850 Symbols
PL 7Level5 kg Stage BurnoutSeaLel
100- G Chute Deployment100 -
80-
60-
4o
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ground Range, km
FIGURE B-3. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR NIKE-APACHE
B-5
300QE = 830 Symbol.
PL = 184 kg ISea Level G Stage Burnout
250 i __ _ __G Chute Deployment
200
4J
'4J
"150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Ground Range, km
FIGURE B-4. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR ASTROBEE F
B-6
Note: To convert to nautical miles, multiply kilometers by 0.541500
QE = 800PL = 45.4 kg
Sea Level Symbol
0 Stage Burnout1250 ,
150
1000 75- -
"V 750.-W
"-4 0 0 30 60Ground Range. km
I? For lot, 2nd & 3rdsItage i~mpact a portion
of the graph has been
500 enlarged
250
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Ground Range, km
FIGURE B-5. SAMPLE TRAJECTORY FOR JAVELIN
APPENDIX C
LAUNCH SITE MAPS
C-I
APPENDIX C
LAUNCH SITE MAPS
Figures C-I through C-14 are range and launch site maps of
nine of the launch sites employed by the NASA Sounding Rocket Program.
During the 1959-1972 period, approximately 90 percent of the NASA
sounding rockets were launched from these sites (See Table 3). The sites
depicted are Wallops Station, Virginia (U.S.A.); White Sands, New Mexico
(U.S.A.); Fort Churchill, Canada; Point Barrow, Alaska (U.S.A.); Thumba,
India; Andoya, Norway; Natal, Brazil; Kiruna, Sweden; and Fairbanks,
Alaska (U.S.A.).
For each launch site, distances between the launch pads and
the facility boundary, and the nearest community are indicated or can
be estimated from the distance scales provided.
In general, press sites, as such, do not exist at these launch
facilities so that it is difficult to determine the closest permitted
approach of uncontrolled personnel to the launch pad during a launch.
Although press representatives and other viewers may be uncontrolled
in the sense of medical histories and periodic health examinations,
their movements are controlled by the responsible agency and they may
be provided with and required to use protective equipment. The nearest
facility boundary represents the closest possible approach of completely
uncontrolled persons.
c- 2
En
CIOIrp ca
rnH
000
1-4 I-I
0n 0
'-4 e0 ~ f
-a1
1__ _ _3__ _ 0H
,-4 N C P4 U~
C-3
50 0 AREArr
0 10 20 30 40 50 -jRA UE O
tt SOUNDING ROCKETSSCALE, km LSE WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGEf
JEL PASO - 82 km
FIGURE C-2. WHITE SANDS LAUNCH FACILITY AND RANGE
C4-
0 10
) I)
A X1*
C-5
.4 %0
4 CA
I _i
I ii 1-4""I /I~' ? j•).i,,i.
t.• .. ,"- ',- ,," .-. <
II I; I.. d -I
ut 0
C.)
S''"a- t/I a
II - • . /o*. i:1
zzS"-II"I"" 1- l N .
-i A .. ., ii! C)•
IV 2
cit-iI
,',",',;',,,--.- "-" I • ". - : Il " • "
. -,-
Ia,"•" " ••
C-6
POINT BARR
I -1eBAY
McCALL GLACIERW / I,
ALASKA ARCTIC VILLAG"1,
" -"-------. t KOTZEB.UE./
BETTLES__ 0,•,, o FT Yu-oIN_---
The broken line indicates the geomagnetic meridian 2570
FIGURE C-5. LOCATION OF POINT BARROW LAUNCH FACILITY
c- 7
rn-
low
so Z
94 0II U H
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0 C
EE
* -l
C-8)
........ ...... .... .
... . .....
10 ...........~~~ 0 ...c e
.... ... I~j..... ........
VM80N
ca C
NSOSMS
---------
............... ............ .............. ..... ... .............1.. ..
a,-,zoc0
C-9
co
Lu 0
...< 0 2a2 2 Ux
o9 w~~0 LO~w*~ U)H Z: 4: c IrCw4: uN U< 4:- Cf4
cc N ~ f 0 rs 0 N (n) ~ t0 rs U- ( 00- cr.-- 0 LL N 0 X
_j 0o U) A zzc )
z5-i -iý- <0 D o:Ro oazc wýQ
t; CV.,C
... ....................
00
1--
C*4D
C**
cI
C-10
50° 400 300I I I
00 EQUATOR •0
00
100 100BRAZIL
SAO JOS E
200 CAPRICORN RIO DE JANEIRO0
I I I500 40° 300
FIGURE C-9. LOCATION OF NATAL LAUNCH FACILITY
(See also Figures C-10 and C-11)
C-11
TRUE:NORTHATLANTIC OCEAN
-PONTA NEGRA
*: BARREIRA
FIGURE C-10. LOCATION OF NATAL LAUNCH FACILITY
C-12
cn.
0-
0--
to M C.)
w w
'-44
o '-4
&4-
w.
coNu.
coX
Fw
4 ___
C-13
+I~-. +
+
,4k k
/40
x
IIL.~ -I
tic
IY R A 0 iI4t' */7
x I ' I I
FIUR 01..KIUN OCETRAG
C- 14
Choda9r A M' CF RE A 5
I MPA CT ARA REA A1C0ce i2
PI-I
FIGUE C13.pkoKE TRCE AG
(Se also7 Figur NO-/1cit
C-15
c-F-4
0
H
0
z
oa
00
z H
C--
\0
N0
'--
0
-
APPENDIX D
SOUNDING ROCKETS EXHAUST PRODUCTS
D-1
APPENDIX D
SOUNDING ROCKETS EXHAUST PRODUCTS
Data on exhaust products for fourteen NASA sounding rockets are
presented in Table D-1. The "Other" category includes small amounts of
species whose environmental effects are negligible. References to the
many data sources and a discussion of the methods used in reducing the
data to the form shown are given in Reference 30.
D-2
TABLE D-1. SOUNDING ROCKET PROPELLANT EXHAUST PRODUCTS
Stable Exhaust Product, mass percent
Vehicle Co 2 CO H2 0 H2 HC1 KF KC1 N2 H2S A1203 AIC13 FeCI2 S Pb Other
ArcasStage 1 0.10 26.60 0.25 3.08 22.80 .. .. 7.02 -- 39.43 .. .. .. .. 0.72
Super ArcasStage 1 0.10 26.60 0.25 3.08 22.80 .. .. 7.02 -- 39.43 .. .. .. .. 0.72
Astrobee DStage 1 0.01 34.00 0.002 3.77 8.26 .. .. 7.56 0.31 32.69 13.37 -- 0.03
Astrobee FStage 1 2.87 21.57 8.87 2.13 19.97 .. .. 8.20 0.18 34.03 -- 1.96 .. .. 0.22Stage 2 0.01 34.00 0.002 3.77 8.26 .. .. 7.56 0.31 32.69 13.37 -- 0.03
Black Brant IIIBStage 1 5.0 25.5 4.1 3.0 18.9 .. .. 7.5 -- 36.0 .. .. .. .. --
Nike CajunStage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 -- 12.34 -- --.. .. .. .. .Stage 2 27.06 7.38 21.56 0.68 22.15 .. .. 9.02 9.27 1.12 .. .. 0.94 -- 0.82
Nike TomahawkStage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 --.. .. 12.34 .. .. ..-- -- --
Stage 2 1.15 25.01 3.89 2.71 19.94 .. .. 8.02 -- 38.69 .. .. .. .. 0.59
ike ApacheStage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 --.. .. 12.34 .. .. .. ...-- --
Stage 2 1.65 24.64 5.26 2.66 20.06 .. .. 7.97 -- 37.78 .. .. .. .. ..
Black Brant VCStage 1 5.0 25.5 4.1 3.0 18.9 .. .. 7.5 -- 36.0 .. .. .. .. --
Aerobee 150Stage 1 21.1 33.2 3.6 1.6 -- -- 39.5 . ..-- -- . .. .. . 1.0S ta ge 2 33 .0 2 6 .0 2 0 .8 0 .8 -- 0 .5 -- 18 .9 .. .. .. .. .. . --
Aerobee 170Stage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 .. .-- . 12.34 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Stage 2 33.0 26.0 20.8 0.8 -- 0.5 -- 18.9 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Aerobee 200Stage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 .. .-- . 12.34 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Stage 2 33.0 26.0 20.8 0.8 -- 0.5 -- 18.9 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Aerobee 350Stage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 .. .-- . 12.34 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Stage 2 33.0 26.0 20.8 0.8 -- 0.5 -- 18.9 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
JavelinStage 1 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 .. .-- . 12.34 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Stage 2 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 .. .. .. 12.34 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Stage 3 35.48 42.21 6.66 2.46 .. .. .. 12.34 .. .-- .. .. .. .. .Stage 4 28.55 36.45 12.26 1.46 .. .. .. 12.88 "- 5.48 .. .. .. 2.90 --
APPENDIX E
GLOSSARY
E-1
APPENDIX E
GLOSSARY
dB - decibel, one-tenth of a bel. (The sound-pressure
level in decibels is ec~ual to 20 log1 0 (p/po), where
p is the sound-pressure level of a given sound and po
is an arbitrary sound pressure level usually taken to
be 0.0002 dynes/cm,)
dBA - A-weighted sound level in dB. (A weighted sound-pressure
level in dB corresponding to the frequency response
characteristics of the human ear.)
g - gram
Hz - hertz, cycles/second
IRFNA - inhibited red fuming nitric acid
kg - kilogram
km - kilometer
1 - liter
m - meter
mg - milligram
N - Newton, kg-m/sec2
PL - payload
ppm - parts per million
QE - quadrant elevation, degrees
TLV - threshold limit value
APPENDIX F
COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATEMENT BY EPA
AND PETER HUNT ASSOCIATES
F-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYWASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Mr. Ralph E. CushmanSpecial AssistantOffice of AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space
AdministrationWashington, D.C. 20546
Dear Mr. Cushman:
Enclosed is this Agency's comments on the "DraftEnvironmental Statement for Physics and AstronomySounding Rocket, Balloon and Airborne Research Programs."
This Agency supports the efforts of the National.Aeronautics ancd Space Administration in its variousresearch projects designed to further the total knowledgeof the atmosphere and atmospheric processes. Of particularimportance to the Environmental Protection Agency is theeffect such knowledge will have on the understanding ofair and water pollution problems. To this end, we appreciatethe opportunity to assist you in this endeavor.
If we can be of further service, please contactMr. Jack Anderson of our office.
Sincerely,
George MarienthalActing DirectorOffice of Federal Activities
Enclosure
F-2
(e.n• itst4• 'M. 11, f)rutt ivi 'onmcnt.a. •tatemcnt o'or (the) Physics and
Astrruonnmy 31ouridin Rogk.rt, Ru loon .id Airborne, Hnnscurch r~ograms
In general, the draft statement lacks the detail, on the equipment andprocedures to be employed in the project, to make a valid environmentalimpact assessment. We believe the following additional informationshould be included:
1) Details on all launch vehicles and/or aircraft to be used.Discussion of the flight paths and trajectories (includingmaps), types and quantities of fuel used, and operationalaltitudes of each vehicle.
2) Description of the nature, operational characteristics, andpossible environmental impacts of the equipment to be employed.
3) Any experiments involving tracers or planned release of sub-stances into the atmosphere should be described in detail.Information on the physical and chemical nature of thesesubstances as well as the quantities to be released atvarious altitudes and the probable environmental fate ofeach, should be discussed.
4) Plans for possible dumping or accidental spillage of unburnedfuel in the event of an aborted launch should be described.Particularly important is the likelihood of contamination ofsurface water. Consideration should be given to:
a) The probability of an aborted rocket launch.
b) The quantities of unburned fuel involved.
c) The possible effect of the fuel or reaction productsthereof on water quality and marine life.
d) The geographical regions or bodies of water likelyto be affected.
F-3
Peter Hunt Associates
4.703-3800 832 PALMER ROAO
BRONXVILLT. N.Y. iToe
May 24, 1971
Ralph E, CushmanSpecial AssistantOffice of AdministrationN.A.S.A.Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Cushmans
In the recent, May issue, of the 102 Monitor it was noted thatN.A.S.A has :rtleased a Draft Environmental Impact Statementon a program of Physics and Astronomy Soundings. As a finalstatement in the report of that release was a comment on thepotential pollution from certain chemicals such as sodium, lithium,cesium etc.
As I am sure you a're aware some of N.A.S.A's high altitudereleases ranging from radioactivity to tiny needles may havecreated some problems in the past. I would like to be assured thatyour current program does not involve similar interdisciplinaryoversights.
In line with bolstering my confidence in your capacity for takingthese external considerations into account Iwould greatlyappreciate it if you would send me a copy of your relateddraft analysis on the relense of such foreign materials andtheir expected environmental impact. I hope such an analysiswill detail the nature, composition, date, location, altitude andvelocity of the proposed contamination.
I look forward to reviewing the analysis.
Sincerely yours,
Peter S. Hunt
F-4
Mr. Peter 1luntrotor 1hunt Associates032 Palmor RoadDronxville, Now York 10708
Dear Ir. Uunt:
Thank you for your recent, letter on tlh suhjoct of the NationnlAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Draft tawironmentalStatement for Plysico and Astronomy Sounding Rocket, Balloon andAirborne Research Programs, as abstracted on page 75 of Volune 1,No. 4 of the Council on Environmental Quality's 102 Monitor.
Enclosure I is the full text of our draft environmental statmentwhich is now being put in final form in accordance with the new guide-lines issued by the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)(Fncloouro 2) and our internal MLnagemont Instruction NM1 8800. 7Awhich became effective on 30 June 1971 (Enclosure 3).
For tho past decAdo NASA has boon keenly aware of possible envirom;aontaleffects of its programs, and has continued to reduce to a minimum Inypossible short term adverse impact of those progrnms. Indeed, we tryto assure that our progrAme contribute to the enhcancemcnt of theenvironment through increased understanding of that environment. The&pacific program to vhich you refer will increaso our understandingof the behavior of the upper atmosphere and should contributo to ourunderstanding of.weather phenomenn and the interiction of the earth'satmosphere with the solar energy flux.
In carrying out its responsibilities for space resonrch and npplicntiunsand the advancement of aeronaitica Oud pnceo technology so described inthe basic act establishing the NationAl Aeronautics and Space Adiinistrationof 1958, a umeber of programs are involved which may contribute to thenear term and future projected onhancement of the global envirownent.The Physics and Astronomy Sounding Rocket Program ic just one of these.The CEQ Monitor to which you refer also suniarizes the 'iros Operatio.nalMleteorological Satellite Program to provide systematic global cloudcover observations; the Nimbus Program to develop the next generation ofoperational meteorological satellites; the Global Atmospheric Research
F-5
Proarnm to ontnblinh the phyuicol And mnthe.llnticol basis ror long;-rnmiig wonthor predictions on A ILubn[l inoaLu; the LortLh RecourcosAircratt rro-rawi to develop multinpoctrnl nentnera and other rasotesonsors for uio in aircraft and spno.e lnbnrntoriae; and the rnrthRooources Tochtiology Satollita Project to tent orb'ftina opneocrnft tocondtuct cxpnrimaenta that will toot the "tility or the opplicntion ofapnco-borne nnn.oro to natuitl and cult-rnl renounces probletn. Thislent pro;'rnm will furnish a wCnlth of da.tn to tho usor comnunity, thefederal, state and local organizations ,:Inr,;ed with earth roeourcesrosponsibilities in such areas as agrictilLure, forestry, geology,hydrology, oceanography, land use plauning, and environmental management.
As you can sea, the sounding rocket resenrch in Physics -and Astronomyis just one of the several tnoln we use in our broadly based SpaceScionco and Applications Progr.r.i In odidresnuing your specific concernsin this particular program area, tho following data are provided:
MASA hoo not released either rndionctivo materinl or noedloaat high altitudes in nny of our progrnras, nor do we intcndto do so in any of our plantcd prorrnmas.
Sounding rockets are the only mentin of obtaining data below150 lun, where 6ntollites cannot nurvive, and of providingvertical profiles of geoplhysicAl pnrnmetcra which arecomplementary to satellite obsorvations. Sounding rocketsare a flexiblo, timely, and coot-effective means of pro-viding space flibht orportunitio. and, as such, constitutean invaluable coraponerq of a balanced program in spaceresearch.
Inoxponoive vehicles are utilized to carry a wide varietyof sciontific inotrumonts developed for studios in thedisciplines of aeronomy, energetic particleo and field.,ionosphoreo and radio physics, glaIctic and radio astronomy,and solar physics.
Sounding rockets provide timely opportunities fort conductingtest flighta of instrumontation being developed for spacecraft,studying scientific phenomena in the onploratory phase andtaking advantage of unique opportunities (eclipseo, novae,flares otc.).
In a typical year. the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA),'ihyaaics Lnd Astronomy Progriams, launches approximately 100 rocketo to
conduct investigation& in the disciplines of planetary ctrosphores,particles and fields, Ionospheric and radio phyuics..astronomy, and
F-6
1olAr phyyoaco. Approximately 92% of thn.a rockots carry scientificLi;strumont pnyloada; only about U7. carry bnrium, Podiums or otherchomicale pnylooda. Chemical pnylond wn.iphta avrnro approxir.'toly20 pounds per rocket and are roleaned nt various altitudoe.fromapproximatoly 100 to 1000 km for study of upper"atcoophero windo,temperature dnnnity and electrical fioldg. Chemical roolasos madefrom Wallops Station, Virgcinin, during the post ynor for exampleconoiated of 13 pounds of bariun-anlt, 2.2 poundo of sodium. 2.2pounds of lithium, and 39. 6 pounds of bnrium-coppor oxido. Asstated in the draft impact statemont, thoeo amounts aro insignificantcompared to the natural influx of material from meteoroids.
Finally, lot me assure you that the interaction of the worldwidescientific corunity participatin- in the pronra'a does indeed providefor effective cooperation and planning of this very important progra•m
We appreciate this opportunity to publici.o the benefits to mankind thatthe National Space krogrom has alre.nly contributed during the postdecade, including our broad-baoad pro,;rnin in environmental reacnrch,development and space applications. I trust that this brief backgroundwill givo you And your asoociater a broader underatandina of ourprogram and allow you to share with ue n a citizon and taxpayer ourpride in loodina the global effort in the international cooperativeefforts to apply tho tools qf the space ago to the study, understanding,long-term otablization and Bnhanoametnt of our total environment.
Sincerely yours,.
"ýr'lIomor M N~riallAssociate Adminiatrator
3 EnclosurSPS/ Qso, :kbs:7/23/71z26447
JW \__
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
CONCUHRENCE__OFrl•£ý. ';(
CUM ' SP/Danie s S/N;;!jlle E/oi4~ 1 } $- -.- -.--.-- -- ---- - - -- - -.......... -. --- -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -•-- - -........................INITALS ... 4 .- .
-. -------- ----j ------- - ---------.....PAT[ POH S;1 IT6 fZIU W(4 A CUYO ______________